Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/05/2008 Council Packet
WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, May 5, 2008 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Anoka County Historical Society 2. Town Center Update (to follow on Friday) 3. Rain Sensor Incentives 4. Blue Heron Days/Lino Lakes Ambassadors Funding 5. Xcel Energy Franchise Agreement 6. Lino Lakes Lions Club Sign Donation 7. Animal Ordinance Review of May 12 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Adjourn PAGE 1 WS — Item #1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 1 Date: May 5, 2008 To: City Council From: Julie Bartell Re: Anoka County Historical Society Background Ms. Jan Anderson, Board of Directors of the Anoka County Historical Society, has requested the opportunity to provide the council with a recap of the Anoka County Sesquicentennial Celebration held in 2007. Representatives of the Historical Society will be present at the work session and will be showing a 13 minute DVD as well as expressing thanks the City of Lino Lakes for participating in the event. 1 WS -2 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Al Rolek Date: May 5, 2008 Re: Town Center — Legacy Development Update During its recent goal setting session the City Council set a 2008 goal to complete a risk assessment and a definition of potential options for dealing with emerging issues and conditions affecting the project for the Legacy development. With the economic downturn we are now experiencing, the development has slowed to a near standstill. City projects that are impacted by the development are the installation of streets and utilities, street scaping and street lighting, development of the community green, the 35W /Lake Drive interchange and, to a lesser extent, the YMCA project. All of these projects are funded through the issuance of municipal bonds to be repaid through the receipt of special assessments, tax increment proceeds and tax abatements. Toward accomplishing this goal, staff has had several meetings with our bond counsel, Steve Bubul of Kennedy and Graven, and with our financial advisors, Paul Steinman and Terri Heaton of Springsted, Inc., to review our original documents, agreements, and assumptions for the project. During our various meetings we have discussed the impact of the present economic situation on the projects and asked for updated projections based on what is known today. Attached you will find a memo from Paul Steinman assessing the impact on the various aspects of this project and providing several scenarios that might be considered going forward. The analysis also addresses the impact on City financing of the various projects supported by this development in an attempt to provide the City Council with information to discuss its options, both developmental and financial, for the development going forward. Paul will be in attendance at the work session to review his memo and help sort out the possibilities for the future of this project. Staff will be on hand as well to provide any verbal updates and join in discussions relative to the development. The final objective is to develop a strategy for addressing our future monitoring and actions for the Legacy development. Page 1 Sp°insed MEMORANDUM Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887 Tel: 651 - 223 -3000 Fax: 651 - 223 -3002 www.springsted.com TO: Al Rolek, Finance Director FROM: Paul Steinman, Vice President/Consultant DATE: April 30, 2008 SUBJECT: Lino Lakes — Legacy TIF District No. 1 -11 At the City's request, we have updated our financial analysis of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -11 based on current information provided by City staff, the County, and other resources. Background The City issued $4.215M of General Obligation (GO) Tax Increment Bonds in 2007 pledging tax increment generated from District 1 -11 to pay debt service. Additional anticipated sources of revenue included annual pooled increment from TIF District 1 -10 until 2010 and MSA Funds through 2016. The City also issued GO Improvement Bonds for projects within and outside of the geographic area of TIF District 1 -11. The most pressing obligation for the City is the GO Tax Increment Bonds of 2007. This memo will primarily address that issue by updating the tax increment analysis related to District 1 -11 and the GO Tax Increment Bonds. These updated tax increment projections for TIF District 1 -11 are based on future projected development, and current development including a hotel and a tax credit residential housing with some commercial. The developer of the existing projects has guaranteed minimum assessment agreements beginning in taxes payable 2008 that total $11.2M. The County has verified the $11.2M value for taxes payable 2008 for the hotel and tax credit projects. Of the $11.2M, $5.5M is commercial valuation (hotel 1st floor retail in the housing project) and $5.7M is residential valuation in the tax - credit residential rental housing project. The City has two interfund loans dependent upon tax increment generated in District 1 -11. The first interfund loan is $950,000 and the second is $556,000. These notes carry an interest rate established as the maximum that can be charged by state law on interfund loans — currently through the end of 08 that is 8 %. Schedules for both notes are attached to this report. Public Sector Advisors City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 2 Assumptions for the Revised Analysis For the worksession, Springsted conducted sensitivity scenarios to measure the affect of varying amounts and timing of development on the Districts future obligations. The base assumptions used in each of the scenarios include: • Pay 2008 tax rate of 92.138% • Actual tax increment received in pay 2007 is $5,948 • Increment is reduced by an administrative fee of 5% annually • Pooled TIF is equal to $189,209 over 5 years • MSA funds equal to $2,259,900 over 10 years Scenario 1 Scenario 1 uses the following assumptions in addition to the base assumptions shown above: • Current value of the site includes the Hotel and Tax Credit Housing at a total of $11.2M, as guaranteed in the minimum assessed value agreement • No assumption of market value inflation to the current value of $11.2M, until pay 2012, then at 2% per year • Additional residential town home development construction schedule is to build 33 units in 2011, 33 units in 2012, and 34 units in 2013 for a total value of $20.2M • Maximum value at full build -out of the site will be $31.4M of mixed use development - as per the original TIF Plan estimates o It is important to note the actual projected build -out is greater than $60M, but no value greater than $31.4M was ever assumed as part of the original analysis or this updated analysis Collect Year (1) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Pooled MSA TIF Funds 1 -10 (3) (4) 39,865 50,000 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 0 245,500 O 245,500 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 189,209 2,259,500 GO TIF TIF TIF TIF Interfund Interfund Developer Bonds Loan Loan Note $4.215M $950K $556K $1.0M (6) (7) (8) (9) 92,298 0 0 0 334,526 0 0 0 337,926 0 0 0 370,926 0 0 0 412,326 0 0 0 421,726 0 0 0 470,326 0 0 0 471,526 0 0 0 477,126 0 0 0 481,926 0 0 0 255,926 0 0 0 258,326 0 0 0 265,326 0 0 0 271,726 0 0 0 277,526 0 0 0 287,481 0 0 0 291,550 0 0 0 5,778,496 0 0 0 Average Annual Investment Surplus Earnings (Deficit) 0.00% (11) (12) 0 3,198 0 24,968 O 21,568 O (11,432) 0 (52,832) O (97,578) O (85,401) O (24,607) O 33,025 O 33,975 O 20,340 0 23,921 O 23,023 O 22,847 O 23,395 O 19,915 O 22,450 O 775 This table results in a deficit in years 2010 - 2014, but an overall fund balance in 2023 of $775. Although this scenario may fund the GO TIF Bond costs shown here overall, it will require additional MSA funds in the deficit years, which would subsequently be repaid with future tax increment. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 is a worst -case scenario using the same assumptions as in Scenario 1 with two exceptions: • No additional development occurs beyond what is currently existing • Utilizes the maximum term of the TIF District which is 26 years of collection o The bond issue and other financings were constructed around 17 years of tax increment collections, although the TIF Plan did not mandate that the district be decertified early. This scenario uses an additional nine years of tax increment, as is allowed by state law. Collect Year (1) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 1.22,109 25,007 28,967 om_ !-348.;, Pooled MSA TIF Funds 1 -10 (3) (4) 39,865 50,000 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 37,336 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 O 245,500 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 189,209 2,259,500 GO TIF TIF TIF Interfund Developer Bonds Loan Note $4.215M $950K $1.0M (6) (7) (8) 92,298 0 0 334,526 0 0 337,926 0 0 370,926 0 0 412,326 0 0 421,726 0 0 470,326 0 0 471,526 0 0 477,126 0 0 481,926 0 0 255,926 0 0 258,326 0 0 265,326 0 0 271,726 0 0 277,526 0 0 287,481 0 0 291,550 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 5,778,496 0 0 Average Annual Investment Surplus Earnings (Deficit) 0.00% (10) (11) O 3,198 O 24,968 O 21,568 O (11,432) O (52,832) 0 (97,578) O (144,148) O (143,278) O (146,766) O (149,412) O (166,715) O (166,874) 0 (171,588) 0 (175,657) O (179,079) 0 (186,608) O (188,202) O 105,871 O 108,445 O 111,071 O 113,749 O 116,480 0 119,266 O 122,109 O 125,007 O 128,967 O (879,471) This scenario results in a deficit at the end of the district of $879,471. In this worst -case scenario, the deficit would be covered through additional MSA dollars. It is unlikely that this is a realistic scenario; however, it is important to understand the impact of a worst -case scenario. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 4 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 is what Springsted and staff agrees is the most reasonable scenario utilizing all the same assumptions as in Scenario 1 with one exception: • Show how much of the interfund loans can be repaid assuming 6% interest rate • Utilizes the maximum term of the TIF District which is 26 years of collection o The bond issue and other financings were constructed around 17 years of tax increment collections, although the TIF Plan did not mandate that the district be decertified early. This scenario uses an additional nine years of tax increment, as is allowed by state law. Collect Year (1) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Pooled MSA TIF Funds 1-10 (3) (4) GO TIF TIF TIF TIF Interfund Interfund Developer Bonds Loan Loan Note $4.215M $950K $556K $1.0M (6) (7) (8) (9) 0 39,865 50,000 92,298 0 0 0 37,336 245,500 334,526 0 0 0 37,336 245,500 337,926 0 0 0 37,336 245,500 370,926 0 0 0 37,336 245,500 412,326 0 0 0 O 245,500 421,726 0 0 0 O 245,500 470,326 0 0 0 O 245,500 471,526 0 0 0 O 245,500 r 477,126 0 0 0 O 245,500 5, 481,926 0 0 0 0 0 255,926 0 0 0 O 0 258,326 0 0 0 O 0 265,326 0 0 0 O 0 271,726 0 0 0 O 0 r r 277,526 0 0 0 O 0 r 287,481 0 0 0 O 0 291,550 0 0 0 O 0 32+ 37 0 320,737 0 0 O 0 a s 0 327,609 0 0 O 0 0 334,618 0 0 O 0 0 341,767 0 0 O 0 •° rgo 0 349,059 0 0 O 0 0 356,497 0 0 O 0 ;e, p,« r s. 0 364,084 0 0 O 0i. om 0 371,822 0 0 O 0 „));."ts.: 0 375,781 0 0 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (12) 3,198 24,968 21,568 (11,432) (52,832) (97,578) (85,401) (24,607) 33,025 33,975 20,340 23,921 23,023 22,847 23,395 19,915 22,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189,209 2,259,500 5,778,496 3,141,976 0 0 as.� 775 This table results in the same deficits as in Scenario 1 (years 2010 - 2014), which wou d proposed to be covered by future tax increments. This scenario shows that additional increment could be used to repay $3,141,975 on the $950k interfund loan. Regarding the interfund loans, we ran them both out through the end of the term of the TIF District using an assumption of a 6% interest rate from 1/1/09 forward. We capitalized the interest annually, meaning each year's accrued interest is added to the principal amount of the note prior to calculating the following year's interest. This mechanism maximizes the payout on the interfund loan. In the table above even after $3,141,976 is paid on the $950k interfund loan, there is still $868,000 owed. There are multiple methods to calculating interfund loans, and it is important as we examine the scenario 3 table to note that no matter how the loan is calculated, there is not more than $3,141,976 in tax increment available, using the assumptions for scenario 3, to pay on the interfund loan. We could reduce the total payoff by compounding simple City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 5 interest, which may allow the loan to be fully paid off. Subsequently this would allow additional tax increment to flow towards payment of the $556k internal loan, but even in this case there will still be only $3,141,976 in available increments to pay out regardless how the loan is calculated. Both interfund loan notes are attached to this report. Our recommendation is to continue to calculate the interfund loans using capitalized interest thereby maximizing the amount of the City's total payout. Showing the maximum payout is beneficial should the district generate tax increments over and above our current projections meaning there would be additional transfers of funds to pay on the internal loans. Tax Abatement Abatement Bonds were issued to provide a source of funds to affirm the Councils previous financial commitment to the YMCA project. A number of statutory mechanisms were discussed as funding sources for this money including Capital Appreciation Notes, EDA Lease Revenue Bonds, etc. It was determined that the least expensive (lowest borrowing rate) was to issue GO Tax Abatement Bonds. Such bonds require that abatement parcels be described which have a nexus too and /or will receive some benefit from the recipient project of the abatement dollars — the YMCA. Other than identification of these properties for meeting the statutory requirement, repayment was never dependent upon development on these properties. Abatement Bonding was only a mechanism (the most efficient mechanism) to make good on a commitment, which had previously been made to the YMCA. As of this date, no tax capacity has been constructed on the abatement parcels. Such additional tax capacity would have had the affect of offsetting the impact of the tax abatement levy. Upon the sale of the abatement bonds, the City committed to an abatement levy each year to pay debt service on those bonds, regardless of the level of development on the tax abatement parcels. GO Improvement Bonds General Obligation Improvement Bonds were also issued. The costs were assessed back to the benefiting property owners within and outside of TIF District 1 -11. The assessments become part of the property owner's tax bill and are almost entirely guaranteed to be paid eventually, even if a property is in bankruptcy leading to foreclosure. The City however, may have to wait up to 3 years to be reimbursed for back taxes and assessments, and in the interim, has to pay debt service on the Improvement Bonds. Conclusions Scenario 3 appears to be the most likely. For it to become reality, the primary assumptions we are dependent upon are: • The construction of 33 town home or similarly taxed units in 2011, followed by 33 in 2012 and 34 in 2013 o This equals about $6.73M of residential value constructed in each of the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 for a total of $20.2M • That the value of the hotel and tax credit housing currently existing will not decline (this is a solid assumption given the minimum assessed value agreements in place) City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 6 • That the value of the hotel and tax credit housing will increase at least 2% by pay 2012, and 2% per annum each year thereafter For the town home build -out assumption, if the type of use were to change it would be important to relate the proposed use to tax capacity value, not just assessed value, due to the various class rates and how they relate to the formula for calculating tax increment. For example, $20.2M of tax credit rental housing at .75% class rate would produce less tax increment than $20.2M of owner occupied town homes at 1c/0 class rate. Conversely, $20.2M of commercial value at 2% class rate would produce more tax increment than the owner occupied town home assumption, as would $20.2M of market rate rental housing at 1.25% class rate. Changes in classification rates for any of these types of properties may significantly alter the outcome. Of all the conservative projections used for this analysis, one is most significant — that is our assumption that full build -out of District 1 -11 will be no greater than $31.4M. The geographic land area of the district supports significantly more development than $31.4M and the original plans show that with development of ancillary lots, full build -out may be as high as $60M. It is likely that development beyond $31.4M will occur, sometime prior to the decertification of the district. However, no additional increment beyond what is created by $31.4M of market value is assumed in any of the scenarios provided herein. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 7 Projected Pay -As- You -Go Note Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1 -11 The Village Project - Updated $950K PayGO Note, Using Last Nine Years of Increment Note Date: 10/28/05 Note Rate: 4.00% in 05, 6.00% in 06, 8.00% in 07/08, 6% thereafter Amount: $950,000 Semi - Annual Loan Net Capitalized Balance Date Principal Interest P & I Revenue Interest Outstanding (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 950,000.00 02/01/06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,816.67 959,816.67 08/01/06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,794.50 988,611.17 02/01/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,658.34 1,018,269.51 08/01/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,730.78 1,059,000.29 02/01/08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,360.01 1,101,360.30 08/01/08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44,054.41 1,145,414.71 02/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,816.59 1,191,231.30 08/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,736.94 1,226,968.24 02/01/10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,809.05 1,263,777.29 08/01/10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,913.32 1,301,690.61 02/01/11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,050.72 1,340,741.33 08/01/11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,222.24 1,380,963.57 02/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,428.91 1,422,392.48 08/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,671.77 1,465,064.25 02/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43,951.93 1,509,016.18 08/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,270.49 1,554,286.67 02/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46,628.60 1,600,915.27 08/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48,027.46 1,648,942.73 02/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49,468.28 1,698,411.01 08/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,952.33 1,749,363.34 02/01/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52,480.90 1,801,844.24 08/01/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54,055.33 1,855,899.57 02/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55,676.99 1,911,576.56 08/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57,347.30 1,968,923.86 02/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,067.72 2,027,991.58 08/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,839.75 2,088,831.33 02/01/19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,664.94 2,151,496.27 08/01/19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,544.89 2,216,041.16 02/01/20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,481.23 2,282,522.39 08/01/20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68,475.67 2,350,998.06 02/01/21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70,529.94 2,421,528.00 08/01/21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72,645.84 2,494,173.84 02/01/22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74,825.22 2,568,999.06 08/01/22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77,069.97 2,646,069.03 02/01/23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79,382.07 2,725,451.10 08/01/23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81,763.53 2,807,214.63 02/01/24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84,216.44 2,891,431.07 08/01/24 73,625.71 86,742.93 160,368.64 160,368.64 0.00 2,817,805.36 02/01/25 75,834.48 84,534.16 160,368.64 160,368.64 0.00 2,741,970.88 08/01/25 81,545.59 82,259.13 163,804.72 163,804.72 0.00 2,660,425.29 02/01/26 83,991.96 79,812.76 163,804.72 163,804.72 0.00 2,576,433.33 08/01/26 90,015.96 77,293.00 167,308.96 167,308.96 0.00 2,486,417.37 02/01/27 92,716.44 74,592.52 167,308.96 167,308.96 0.00 2,393,700.93 08/01/27 99,072.69 71,811.03 170,883.72 170,883.72 0.00 2,294,628.24 02/01/28 102,044.87 68,838.85 170,883.72 170,883.72 0.00 2,192,583.37 08/01/28 108,751.97 65,777.50 174,529.47 174,529.47 0.00 2,083,831,40 02/01/29 112, 014.53 62, 514.94 174, 529.47 174, 529.47 0.00 1, 971, 816.87 08/01/29 119,094.08 59,154.51 178,248.59 178,248.59 0.00 1,852,722.79 02/01/30 122,666.91 55,581.68 178,248.59 178,248.59 0.00 1,730,055.88 08/01/30 130,140.33 51,901.68 182,042.01 182,042.01 0.00 1,599,915.55 02/01/31 134,044.54 47,997.47 182,042.01 182,042.01 0.00 1,465,871.01 08/01/31 141,935.02 43,976.13 185,911.15 185,911.15 0.00 1,323,935.99 02/01/32 146,193.07 39,718.08 185,911.15 185,911.15 0.00 1,177,742.92 08/01/32 152,558.16 35,332.29 187,890.45 187,890.45 0.00 1,025,184.76 02/01/33 157,134.91 30,755.54 187,890.45 187,890.45 0.00 868,049.85 $2,023,381 $1,118,594.20 $3,141,975.42 $3,141,975.42 $1.941,431.07 Surplus Tax Increment 0.00 Total Net Revenue $3,141,975.42 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Legacy Project April 30, 2008 Page 8 Projected Pay -As- You -Go Note Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1 -11 The Village Project - Updated $556K PayGO Note, Using Last Nine Years of Increment Note Date: 12/31/07 Note Rate: 8.00% in 07/08, and 6% thereafter Amount: $556,000 Semi - Annual Loan Net Capitalized Balance Date Principal Interest P & I Revenue Interest Outstanding (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 556,000.00 02/01 /08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,780.00 558,780.00 08/01/08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,351.20 581,131.20 02/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,245.25 604,376.45 08/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,131.29 622,507.74 02/01/10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,675.23 641,182.97 08/01/10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,235.49 660,418.46 02/01/11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,812.55 680,231.01 08/01/11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,406.93 700,637.94 02/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,019.14 721,657.08 08/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,649.71 743,306.79 02/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,299.20 765,605.99 08/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,968.18 788,574.17 02/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,657.23 812,231.40 08/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,366.94 836,598.34 02/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,097.95 861,696.29 08/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,850.89 887,547.18 02/01/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,626.42 914,173.60 08/01/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,425.21 941,598.81 02/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,247.96 969,846.77 08/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,095.40 998,942.17 02/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,968.27 1,028,910.44 08/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,867.31 1,059,777.75 02/01/19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,793.33 1,091,571.08 08/01 /19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,747.13 1,124,318.21 02/01/20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,729.55 1,158, 047.76 08/01/20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,741.43 1,192,789.19 02/01/21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,783.68 1,228,572.87 08/01/21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,857.19 1,265,430.06 02/01/22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,962.90 1,303,392.96 08/01/22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,101.79 1,342,494.75 02/01/23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,274.84 1,382,769.59 08/01/23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,483.09 1,424,252.68 02/01/24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,727.58 1,466,980.26 08/01/24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44,009.41 1,510,989.67 02/01/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,329.69 1,556,319.36 08/01/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46,689.58 1,603,008.94 02/01/26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48,090.27 1,651,099.21 08/01/26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49,532.98 1,700,632.19 02/01/27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51,018.97 1,751,651.16 08/01/27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52,549.53 1,804,200.69 02/01/28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54,126.02 1,858,326.71 08/01/28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55,749.80 1,914,076.51 02/01/29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57,422.30 1,971,498.81 08/01/29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,144.96 2,030,643.77 02/01/30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,919.31 2,091,563.08 08/01/30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,746.89 2,154,309.97 02/01/31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,629.30 2,218,939.27 08/01/31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,568.18 2,285,507.45 02/01/32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68,565.22 2,354,072.67 08/01/32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70,622.18 2,424,694.85 02/01/33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72,740.85 2,497,435.70 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,941,435.70 Surplus Tax Increment 0.00 Total Net Revenue $0.00 Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 Memorandum To: Mayor Bergeson and City Council Members From: Rick DeGardne , Public Services Director Date: April 30, 2008 Re: Rain Sensor Retro -fit Program Options During the April 7, 2008 City Council Work Session, staff was directed to provide some alternatives pertaining to the rain sensor retro -fit program. After contacting area distributors /contractors, staff has determined that most economical way to acquire the rain sensors is through Toro's program. The City can purchase between 100 - 500 contractor grade rain sensors annually at a cost of $50 each (Retails for $117). Based upon City Council discussion, staff recommends purchasing 200 rain sensors for 2008 and reevaluating the program next year. Option #1 — Make available the rain sensors for $50. Residents would be responsible to install them. Staff would follow up to verify that the rain sensor is properly installed and functioning. There would be no net impact to the Water Operating Budget (Buy the rain sensors for $50 and sell them for $50). Option #2 — Make available a rain sensor and installation for $50. After contacting area irrigation contractors, staff recommends utilizing Northway Irrigation to install the rain sensors. Northway Irrigation has agreed to a price of $37.50 per installation. They are also a Toro distributor. City staff would set up appointments and be the primary contact for residents. This would also provide an opportunity to perform a system audit (if the resident is interested) to ensure that the irrigation system is performing properly /efficiently. Northway Irrigation is a licensed contractor. The maximum impact to the Water Operating Budget would be $7,500 (200 installations @ $37.50). Option #3 — Provide a rain sensor and installation at no cost to the homeowner. This option would most certainly provide the best opportunity of having irrigation systems equipped with rain sensors. The maximum impact to the Water Operating Budget would be $17,500 (200 installations @ $87.50). C: \Documents and Settings\ rick .degardner.METRO- INET\Desktop \Rain Sensor Options 4- 23- 08.doc WS — Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 4 Date: Council Work Session, May 5, 2008 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Clarification of Commitment /Expenditures for Blue Heron Days Background In September of last year the City Council approved Resolution 07 -146 designating a portion of the returned Memorial Hospital District funds for Blue Heron Days. At the time it was anticipated that these funds would be used for parade float maintenance, parade entry fees, ambassador program registration fees, ambassador attire (crown, sash, gown), etc. While some of these expenditures have established organizations responsible for the activities (such as the Winter Carnival parade and the Aquatennial event), the Blue Heron Days and, in particular, the ambassador program, have no established entity which is responsible for the activities associated with this function. Lynn Bergman has been acting in the capacity of Lino Lakes Ambassador Program Director. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting that the City Council clarify its action to provide this funding by designating individuals and/or associations it authorizes to receive and expend these funds and the purpose of the expenditure. The individuals, associations and functions listed above are examples of the designations and clarifications we are seeking. 1 WS — Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 5 Date: Council Work Session, May 5, 2008 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Development of New Franchise Agreements Background As discussed at the April 7, 2008 Council Work Session, the 1988 franchise agreements with Xcel Energy will be expiring in June. The Council directed staff to incorporate the ability to establish franchise fees in the new Xcel Energy agreements and to further explore the idea of establishing franchise fees for the other utilities. Staff has consulted with Mr. James Strommen, attorney with Kennedy and Graven, who specializes in utility franchise agreements and negotiations. (Mr. Strommen participated in the development and subsequent revisions to the LMC Model Right -of -Way Ordinance, used by cities throughout Minnesota. He also prepared a draft Lino Lakes Right -of -Way Ordinance in 2002.) Mr. Strommen has prepared a memo (attached) which includes his recommendations regarding negotiating new agreements with Xcel Energy and the other utilities, if desired. He is strongly recommending the adoption of the Right -of -Way Ordinance, with updates. The City has the power to adopt this ordinance which regulates the public rights -of -way, thereby eliminating the need to negotiate these issues in the franchise agreements. He is also recommending the establishment of one uniform franchise agreement for all utilities and a common rate design and amount for each type of utility. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction as to whether the Council wishes to proceed with the preparation and adoption of the Right -of -Way Ordinance, establishment of a common franchise agreement, and development of a proposed rate design and amount for each utility, as recommended by legal counsel. 1 (Staff has attached a copy of the LMC Model Right -of -Way Ordinance, which is an update of the draft 2002 Lino Lakes Right -of -Way Ordinance, to provide for a general understanding of the purpose and scope of a right -of way management ordinance. This model will require minor updating for adoption purposes.) Attachments 1. Strommen memo, April 29, 2008 2. LMC Model Right -of -Way Ordinance 2 CHARTERED James M. Strommen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9233 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax email: jstrommen @kennedy- graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Gordon Heitke, City Administrator FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: April 30, 2008 RE: City Gas and Electric Franchise, Franchise Fee Options INTRODUCTION You have asked for a short, introductory memo that identifies issues facing the City in light of expiring franchises with Xcel Electric and Gas, gas franchises with Centennial Utilities Energy, and no franchise with Connexus Energy. Summarized below are the current franchise ordinances between the City and its multiple gas and electric utility providers, and some policy considerations, franchise /right -of -way management issues, and franchise fee (revenue generation) options before the City. DISCUSSION Current Franchises. You have provided me with copies of several franchises and identified the utility providers to customers in the City. They are: 1. Xcel Energy d/b /a Northern States Power, Electric, Ord. No. 06 -88 expires on June 13, 2008. 2. Xcel Energy d/b /a Northern States Power, Gas, Ord. No. 07 -88, expires on June 13, 2008. 3. City of Circle Pines n/k/a Centennial Utilities, Gas, Ord. No. 13 -86, expires on March 23, 2012. 4. CenterPoint Energy, Gas, f/k/a Reliant Energy Minnegasco, Ord. No. 14 -00, expires on March 31, 2012. 5. Connexus Energy, Electric. No franchise. It is my understanding that the City has not adopted the comprehensive right -of -way ( "ROW ") management ordinance enabled by the 1997 state legislation and as set forth in the League of Minnesota Cities Model Right -of -Way Ordinance. (see Model on website, revised 12- 15 -05). Thus, the above 332569v1 JMS KG400 -3 utilities' use of ROW in the City is governed either by the franchise ordinances or in the case of Connexus (and telephone companies), by general ROW ordinances. City Franchise Rights. The City may, but is not required to, enter into a franchise with the gas and electric utilities serving customers in the City. Gas and electric utility franchises govern two issues — utility ROW and public ground use, and if the City chooses, the terms and conditions of franchise fees collected by the utilities and paid to the City. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission regulates all other aspects of Xcel and CenterPoint. Centennial Utilities and Connexus set their rates and policies. The law regards franchises as a contract that is negotiated between the utility and the franchising city. Therefore, each utility has the independent right to accept or reject franchise ordinance provisions proposed by a city, subject to certain sovereign rights the City may exercise, such as: the City may require a franchise; it may require a franchise fee; it may exercise its full police power rights. The extent of these city rights as they relate to utilities is often the subject of disagreement in the franchise negotiation process. City Options. The City has a number of options here, and full discussion of each could go into far more detail than this memo will address. The following are available to the City and are recommended generally in the order most beneficial to the City. 1. Adoption of Comprehensive ROW Ordinance. A city of the size and development of Lino Lakes should adopt a comprehensive ROW Ordinance. This type of ordinance brings all utilities under one uniform set of standards, streamlines the franchising process, and removes questions about the extent of the City's authority over non - franchised utilities such as the telephone companies. The ROW Ordinance is a police power ordinance that does not require the consent of the utilities. It may be adopted unilaterally by the City. It is helpful, however, to give utilities prior notice of ROW ordinance adoption, but it is not necessary. 2. Establish One Franchise Form with Uniform Provisions Applicable to All Utilities Serving the City. With a ROW Management Ordinance in place, uniformity of treatment of utilities in the ROW can be carried over to the franchise ordinance. Currently, each of the franchise ordinances is different, and Connexus has no franchise. I recommend a city- prepared ordinance presented to all utilities for renegotiation (Centennial and CenterPoint) or new adoption (Xcel and Connexus). 3. Franchise Fee Revision. Currently, only Centennial Utilities customers pay a franchise fee. No other gas or electric utility customers in the City pay any fee. The fees collected from Centennial Utilities are available for any public use by the City and benefit all residents and businesses in the City, not just those customers paying them. Requirement of franchise fees is a right vested in cities and the terms and conditions are appropriately contained in the franchise ordinance. One method of proceeding would be to identify the total revenue the City seeks to recover annually through franchise fees from gas and electric utilities. That total could then be spread evenly and equitably amongst all utilities and collected as a franchise fee with an agreed - upon rate design (e.g., meter fee or straight percent of gross revenue) by each utility. This would eliminate the disparity that currently exists between Centennial Utilities customers and all other gas and electric customers in the City. There will be some issues of "equality" as between larger gas and electric customers. That hurdle can be overcome through dialogue between the City and utilities, however. 332569v1 JMS KG400 -3 2 Process Going Forward. If the City proceeds on the above basis, the goal would be to have uniform franchises in place for all utilities and a ROW Management Ordinance governing all franchised and non - franchised utilities. Uniform franchise fees could be collected as of a certain date and the City would establish a comprehensive, sustaining management and fee recovery system. Because the franchise process requires utility consent (subject to City rights) and because there are multiple utilities to deal with, this process may take several months. With cooperation from utilities, however, the City could have new franchises in place with equal collection of fees across City ratepayers as early as September 1, 2008. If impasses occur in the franchise negotiation, the process becomes more complicated in deciding whether to compromise or enter into different agreements with different utilities, or enforce City rights in court. Some of the issues that have resulted in impasse and potential impasse between cities and utilities, are as follows: 1. Length of franchise. Cities tend to prefer shorter periods than utilities seek. (See, Xcel proposed Section 2.1). 2. Limitation on city ROW management rights. These types of issues are evidenced in the Xcel- proposed new electric franchise, which I do not recommend the City adopt. (See, e.g., 3.1 (limits scope and priority of City Utility System); 3.4 (does not incorporate proper ROW restoration rules); 4.1 (does not incorporate full City relocation authority and establishes a reimbursement policy for relocations within five years); 5 (does not restrict Xcel tree trimming rights). There are other provisions in the Xcel proposal that I would not recommend the City adopt for a 20 -year franchise. 3. Franchise fees. There are numerous issues between utilities and cities on franchise fees, e.g., maximum amount of fee, fee apportionment amongst residents and businesses, fee design, fee permit plus franchise fee collection, permit fees in addition to franchise fees, city right to amend, collection of equal amount from other utilities. It is likely that the City will find that some of the utilities are more amenable to City- oriented franchise terms than are other utilities. This can bog down the process, especially when the franchise ordinance is necessary for the utility to be willing to collect a fee. Thus, except for the ROW Management Ordinance that can be passed unilaterally by the City, the franchise processes discussed above may either be implemented relatively quickly with little effort and or be the subject of disagreement resulting in an involved process of addressing multiple utility positions. If you have any questions, please contact me. I would be happy to elaborate on any of the points above. 332569v1 1MS KG400 -3 3 LMC League oMinnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 • (800) 925 -1122 Fax: (651) 281 -1299 • TDD: (651) 281 -1290 www.lmnc.org Model Right -of -Way Ordinance Cooperative effort between City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) and League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Revised 12/15/05 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Model Right -of -Way Ordinance Summary This revision of the model right -of -way ordinance modifies previous versions (most recently, the 1999 version) by adding provisions enforcing new city obligations to "mark and locate" utility service laterals located in the public right -of -way. (New provisions are identified in the ordinance by double underline.) The new obligations result from the adoption of new Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety rules in the summer of 2005. This revision is a collaborative effort between the League and Jim Strommen of the Kennedy & Graven law firm, on behalf of the Suburban Rate Authority. Cities should also be aware that since its original development in the late 1990s, particular cities have adopted modified versions of this model ordinance to meet the unique needs and circumstances of their individual communities. Those modified versions may have also been influenced by the results of negotiations with representatives of the utility industry. As an appendix to this document, we have included several pieces of information that we hope will make the task of right -of -way management easier. Included in the appendix are: 1. A short form of the ordinance for those communities that want to do less extensive right -of -way management. 2. A discussion and sample ordinance provision establishing fees. 3. A summary form of the ordinance for those cities wishing to publish a summary as provided by Minn. Stat. 412.191, subd. 4 or by city charter. 4. A model undergrounding ordinance. 5. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's Public Rights -of -Way Standards rules. 6. The Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety Excavation Notice System rules. Questions or Information: Tom Grundhoefer, General Counsel, LMC Ann Higgins, Intergovernmental Relations Rep., LMC TABLE OF CONTENTS MODEL RIGHT -OF -WAY ORDINANCE SECTION PAGE Sec. 1.01. Findings, Purpose, and Intent 1 Sec. 1.02. Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way 2 Sec. 1.03. Definitions 2 Sec. 1.04. Administration 6 Sec. 1.05. Utility Coordination Committee 6 Sec. 1.06. Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy 6 Sec. 1.07. Registration Information 7 Sec. 1.08. Reporting Obligations 8 Sec. 1.09. Permit Requirement 9 Sec. 1.10. Permit Applications 9 Sec. 1.11. Issuance of Permit; Conditions 10 Sec. 1.12. Permit Fees 10 Sec. 1.13. Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration 11 Sec. 1.14. Joint Applications 11 Sec. 1.15. Supplementary Applications 12 Sec. 1.16. Other Obligations 12 Sec. 1.17. Denial of Permit 13 Sec. 1.18. Installation Requirements 13 Sec. 1.19. Inspection 13 Sec. 1.20. Work Done Without a Permit 13 Sec. 1.21. Supplementary Notification 14 Sec. 1.22. Revocation of Permits 14 Sec. 1.23. Mapping Data 15 Sec. 1.24. Location and Relocation of Facilities 15 Sec. 1.25. Pre - excavation Facilities Location 16 Sec. 1.26. Damage to Other Facilities 16 Sec. 1.27. Right -of -Way Vacation 16 Sec. 1.28. Indemnification and Liability 16 Sec. 1.29. Abandoned and Unused Facilities 16 Sec. 1.30. Appeal 16 Sec. 1.31. Severability 17 Sample Application for Right -of -Way Permits 18 Model Ordinance LMC /CEAM Right -of -Way Ordinance City of , County, Minnesota An ordinance to enact a new Chapter of the Code of Ordinances to administer and regulate the public rights -of -way in the public interest, and to provide for the issuance and regulation of right -of -way permits THE COUNCIL OF ORDAINS': Chapter of the Code of Ordinances (hereafter "this Code ")2 is hereby repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by the following new Chapter 1 (hereafter "this Chapter "), to read as follows: Chapter 1 Right -of -Way Management Sec. 1.01. Findings, Purpose, and Intent. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights -of -way, the city strives to keep its rights -of -way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to right -of -way permits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights -of -way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights -of -way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out -of- pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights - of -way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act ") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right -of -way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 — 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, Enacting clauses are different in various charters. The statutory city enacting clause is used here. 2In most cases, there will be ordinances or legislative codes that will need to be amended or repealed because of inconsistency with the new regulations. One method is to repeal all those provisions and replace them with this ordinance. 1 Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 1.02. Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects, pursuant Minn. Stat. 237.163 subd. 2(b), to manage rights -of- way within its jurisdiction. Sec. 1.03. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right -of -way user. "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right -of -way. "City" means the city of , Minnesota. For purposes of section 1.28, "city" means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. "Commission" means the State Public Utilities Commission. "Congested Right -of -Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right - of -way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04. subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: A. Individual project bond; B. Cash deposit; C. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.73, subd. 3; D. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; E. Self- insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; F. A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right -of -way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right -of -way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right -of -way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. 2 "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right -of -way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. "Depaitment" means the depattment of public works of the city. (Note: If a city does not have a public works department, an equivalent department may be designated.) "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the city to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. "Director" means the director of the department of public works of the city, or her or his designee. (Note: Some cities may prefer to use the term city rather than delegating responsibilities to a specific position.) "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right -of -way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right -of -way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right -of -way. "Excavation permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right -of -way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right -of -way described in such permit. "Excavation permit fee" means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 1.12. "Facility" or "Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right -of -way required to provide Utility Service. "Five -year project plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right -of -way within which telecommunications right -of -way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common 3 structure. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights -of -way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right -of -way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right -of -way work; determining the adequacy of right -of -way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right -of -way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right -of -way user for the use of the right -of -way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 1.30 of this chapter. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a right -of -way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right -of -way. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right -of -way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right -of -way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 1.12 "Patch" or "Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five -year project plan. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right -of -way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. "Permit" has the meaning given "right -of -way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right -of -way has been granted by the city under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or 4 nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. "Probation" means the status of a person that has not complied with the conditions of this chapter. (Note: This paragraph is included as an option for your city.) "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing that they have been put on probation. (Note: This paragraph is included as an option for your city.) "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right -of -way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right -of -way or place its facilities or equipment in the right -of -way. "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right -of -way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the city by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. "Public Right -of -Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights -of -way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right - of -way does not include the airwaves above a right -of -way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. (Note: this definition does not include other public grounds that may be the subject of other city requirements.) "Right -of -Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right -of -Way User" means (1) a telecommunications right -of -way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right -of -way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right -of -way. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right - of -way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat., Chapter 308A; and (6) water, omd sewer, , steam, cooling or heating services. 5 "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right -of -way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city's two - year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication right -of -way user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right -of -way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right -of -way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not telecommunications right -of -way users for purposes of this chapter. "Two Year project Plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. Sec. 1.04 Administration. The director3 is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights -of -way, right -of -way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. Sec. 1.05. Utility Coordination Committee. The city may create an advisory utility coordination committee. Participation on the committee is voluntary. It will be composed of any registrants that wish to assist the city in obtaining information and, by making recommendations regarding use of the right -of -way, and to improve the process of performing construction work therein. The city may determine the size of such committee and shall appoint members from a list of registrants that have expressed a desire to assist the city. (Note: This is not required in the as part of state or federal law but is included as an option for your city.) Sec. 1.06. Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy. Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right -of- 3The city manager would usually make the appointment. A council resolution should be used in the typical weak mayor, non - manager city. The mayor of strong mayor cities would typically make this appointment. 6 way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right -of -way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof, in any right -of -way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right -of -way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right -of -way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Stat. Chap. 216D, Gopher One Call Law. Sec. 1.07. Registration Information. Subd. 1. Information Required. The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Each registrant's name, Gopher One -Call registration certificate number, address and e- mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (b) The name, address and e -mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self - insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self - insurance acceptable to the city; (2) Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right -of -way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right -of -way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; and (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (d) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (e) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (f) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. Subd. 2. Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change. Sec. 1.08. Reporting Obligations. Subd. 1. Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights -of -way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: (a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a "next -year project "); and (b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "five -year project "). The term "project" in this section shall include both next -year projects and five -year projects. By January 1 of each year, the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next -year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next -year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. Subd. 2. Additional Next -Year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an 8 application for a right -of -way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. Sec. 1.09. Permit Requirement. Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right -of -way without first having obtained the appropriate right -of -way permit from the city to do so. (a) Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right -of -way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right -of -way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right -of -way by placing equipment described therein on the right -of -way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right -of -way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right - of -way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3 and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this Section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right -of -way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. Sec. 1.10. Permit Applications. Application for a permit is made to the city. Right -of -way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: [Note: Copy of model permit application is included at end of document.] (a) Registration with the city pursuant to this chapter; (b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (c) Payment of money due the city for: (1) permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; (2) prior obstructions or excavations; 9 (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights -of -way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (d) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. (e) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. Sec. 1.11. Issuance of Permit; Conditions. Subd. 1. Permit Issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use. Sec. 1.12. Permit Fees. [Note: Sample fee schedules included in the appendix; also note that Minn. Rule 7819.1000 establishes requirements for establishing fees.] Subd. 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the city management costs; (b) degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 3. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 4. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 1.22 are not refundable. Subd. 5. Application to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right -of -way user in the franchise. 10 Sec. 1.13. Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right -of -way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 1.16. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right -of -way or to restore the right -of -way itself. (a) City Restoration. If the city restores the right -of -way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right -of -way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. (c) Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of right -of -way restoration, a right -of -way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right -of -way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 1.16. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right -of -way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right -of -way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. Sec. 1.14. Joint Applications. Subd. 1. Joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right - of -way at the same place and time. Subd. 2. Shared fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation, which 11 the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. Subd. 3. With city projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by the city, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit would still be required. Sec. 1.15. Supplementary Applications. Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the area of the right -of -way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. Sec. 1.16. Other Obligations. Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a right -of -way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including •_��•'___•_ •__!..�.� __•_.__ . �._____ ' 216D.01 -.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) .. • ►A ' i - • , e - ,_. - . 1 A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right -of -way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right -of -way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right -of -Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right -of -way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right -of -way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. 1 , • I S • 1 • .115 .5 5 - • - 1111 5 - ••1 17:__7115 • 11 12 . -. . .. u- ... . . .. . IS a -. . .. .. 1 - ... 1 -. -11-1 - .r. . 1/ i.- s . .1 - 1.0' .1 .11 14 ..- . . - ... - .1 ... I. - . - .. .. . l . .. - . . . 9 . cleterminerl by the riirertnr Sec. 1.17. Denial of Permit. The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use. Sec. 1.18. Installation Requirements. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right -of -way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sectinnc 717 167 and 717 161 Tnstallatinn of service laterals shall he perfnrmecl in arenrrlanre with Minnesnta Rules Chapter .151 1 r . - . - . .. - - . _ .. _ . . . . 1 1 . .. - . r . . .- ► 1 .- . 11 .. - .- r.. . 11 . . J - -.. -. - - - 1 -. . - 11 snhrl 7 of this nrcdinance Sec. 1.19. Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work -site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd 3. Authority of Director. (a) At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well -being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 1.22. Sec. 1.20. Work Done Without a Permit. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency Fxravatnrs' nntifiratinn to Clnpher State One Call 13 regarding an emerg ney citnatinn fines not fiulfill thic requirement Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated Therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non - Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right -of -way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right -of -way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 1.21. Supplementary Notification. If the obstruction or excavation of the right -of -way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. Sec. 1.22. Revocation of Permits. Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right -of -way permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the right -of -way permit; (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right -of -way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right -of -way permit; (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 1.19. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit, the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. 14 Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty -four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the permittee on probation for one (1) full year. [Note: The concept of probation is included as an option. It is opposed by the utility industry.] Subd. 4. Cause for Probation. From time to time, the city may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the permittee on probation for one full year, such as, but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on right -of -way grossly outside of the permit authorization. Subd. 5. Automatic Revocation. If a permittee, while on probation, commits a breach as outlined above, permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and permittee will not be allowed further permits for one full year, except for emergency repairs. Subd. 6. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. Sec. 1.23. Mapping Data. Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as- built" location of all equipment installed, owed and maintained by the permittee. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the city's electronic mapping system, ,_1:_1_111 • • • •_ 1 ■ 1 • I 111. 'I 1 1 - . - • Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Suhd 7. .Cvrviry f.atvralc All permitc iccned fnr the inctallatinn nr repair of cervire laterals nther than minnr repairs ac defined in Minnesnta Rn1es 7560 0150 cnhpart 7 shall require the permittee'c iiqe of . 1 1 - • 1 • - -f _I1 1 - t11_11 •1 . • . •• / 1 1 -1 -r - . - .1• 1- r - 1 .I1 . • 1. 111 1 1- 1 - 1 - 1- 1 - . • r 1 1- 1 - 1 1 1- 1 -1 11 1 .1_ - -. 1 1- ' - -- -1 1 l - - - ON: 11 11 _._. __.�. '! —• —' • . 1 1 1 1 - - . r • 11. _ 11-1 1 • 1I ' 1 1 I. a l -- -1 1 _._ 11 - 11 - 1 —1 —S - -- ' 1 1 - - - • o ' I • - ea- „ • . - - -• . .1 - -- 1 . 1 - A " -- - - — 1.111 • 1- • 1111.1 a_ - • . is - -_! . J- 11 - 1 • • 1_ 118 • . • - • . 1.s • s • . 1 • - LA 1 I - • . . 1 - A • I- . - � �. -_ - -. s o. . . - - ---Bus I I - -.I_s I_. •._ - am- 1 . 1 . 1_ • 1 1I- 1 - • • - 1 1 1 • - 1 111 • .1 . . . - 1 8_111_11..__1111_11 1 I - -r - - - - 1 1- - 1 • 1 • 1- 1-1111 I 1 1!. -.__1 ;•11 1 1- 1 ,! �1 1 • - 1111 - - • 15 Sec. 1.24. Location and Relocation of Facilities. Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. [Note: Cities wishing to require the undergrounding of utilities should adopt the separate undergrounding ordinance included in the appendix. Jim Strommen of Kennedy & Graven drafted the suggested undergrounding ordinance for the Suburban Rate Authority. ] Subd. 2. Corridors. The city may assign a specific area within the right -of -way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right -of -way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. [Note: this is not intended to establish "high density corridor," cities wishing to establish a high- density corridor should follow PUC rules.] Any registrant who has facilities in the right -of -way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the city shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where the facilities are located, move the facilities to the assigned position within the right -of -way, unless this requirement is waived by the city for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and hardship to the registrant. Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right -of -way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right -of -way to a useable condition. Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use, the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right -of -way. In making such decisions, the city shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right -of -way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right -of -way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right -of -way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. Sec. 1.25 Pre - excavation Facilities Location. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01 -.09 ( "One Call Excavation Notice System ") before the start date of any right -of -way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. Sec. 1.26. Damage to Other Facilities. 16 When the city does work in the right -of -way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant's facilities to protect it, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right -of -way which it or its facilities damage. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the city's response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities. Sec. 1.27. Right -of -Way Vacation. Reservation of right. If the city vacates a right -of -way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right -of -way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. Sec. 1.28. Indemnification and Liability By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. Sec. 1.29. Abandoned and Unusable Facilities. Subd .1. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right -of -way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right -of -way shall remove it from that right -of -way if required in conjunction with other right -of -way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. Sec. 1.30. Appeal. A right -of -way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Stat. § 237.163, Subd. 6; may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, eci in reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting, provided the right -of -way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a regular agenda item. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. Sec. 1.31. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. 17 CITY Utility Connections/Right of Way Permits Office ADDRESS Telephone (XXX) XXX-XXXX APPLICATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS Excavation Permit Obstruction Permit Attached Plan Submitted by (Applicant): El Joint Application (Company Names): GSOC Registration #: 1 Plan ft: Project #: Location: From and To (Address/Location): Applicant: Address: 24 Hour Phone: City: State: Zip: Contact Person: Cell Phone #: Work Phone: 24 Hour #: Pager #: General Contractor. GSOC Registration #: Work Phone: 24 Hr. #: Contact Person: Work Phone: Home Phone: Pager/Cell #: Sub Contractor #1: GSOC Registration #: Sub Contractor #2: GSOC Registration #: 1,4144W4raiKa$.5‘4:lood*V-,9.10W' 4F4gir 'WifittoW -.114.104,ft.80.1WASINA-INEMASME00::::::.= Cable TV Gas: Cooling High Pressure Traffic Low Pressure Heating Water Conduit (Size & Kind): Electrical, Voltage: Sewer Telecomm. Fiber Other. Cable (Size &Type): • MOMEASSONOMNS Wittaa T ',Replacement Repair ELAMOMMUMMANagaMOVEOM , I New A'WeLgsd.1 'Other. 1 Trench Hole 1 'Chamber Bore(Specify) Aerial Plow (Specify) Other. FliTABROMME::=1::::SMOUREINNWEINE:.... Excavation Size: Length: Width: - Depth: Total Linear Footage Installed: 1 1 ROW being used: Driving Lane Parking Lane Sidewalk Blvd. Type of Material: Concrete . Bituminous Gravel Sod I {Reid Grass 1 'Trees A iShrubs Structures: Curb & Gutter Sidewalk Signals Other.. Shoulders: Bituminous Gravel Road Signs Culvert • I - 'Other: Estimated Starting Dates: ergalinginigiNEMMONZAMMUIRINSESP::...11,.. Weekend Dates: Estimated Ending Dates: After Hour Dates: Applicants Signature: Date: - Date Received: Review Committee Yes No Approval Date: Permit Number. Perrnit97 1/30P98 7:17 AM APPENDIX Model Ordinance LMC /CEAM Right -of -Way Ordinance [Short Form] City of County, Minnesota An ordinance to enact a new Chapter of the Code of Ordinances to administer and regulate the public right -of -way in the public interest, and to provide for the issuance and regulation of right -of -way permits THE COUNCIL OF ORDAINS4: Chapter of Code of Ordinances (hereafter "this Code ")5 is hereby repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by the following new Chapter 1 (hereafter "this Chapter "), to read as follows: Sec. 1.01. Election to Manage the Public Right -of -Way In accordance with the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects pursuant to this chapter to manage rights - of -way within its jurisdiction. Sec. 1.02. Definitions. The definitions included in Minnesota Statute Section 237.162, 1 .111 14 2- .11 11 sm _ reference and are incorporated into this chapter as if set out in full. Sec. 1.03. Permit Requirement. are hereby adopted by Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right -of -way without first having obtained the appropriate permit from the city. 4Enacting clauses are different in various charters. The statutory city enacting clause is used here. 51n most cases, there will be ordinances or legislative codes that will need to be amended or repealed because of inconsistency with the new regulations. One method is to repeal all those provisions and replace them with this ordinance. 20 (a) Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required to excavate that part of the right -of -way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right - of -way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right -of -way by placing equipment described therein on the right -of -way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right -of -way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless such person (i) makes a supplementary application for another right - of -way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3, and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right -of -way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the director. Sec. 1.04. Permit Applications. Application for a permit shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions: [Note: Copy of Model permit application is included at end of document.] (a) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities, and the following information: (1) Each permittee's name, Gopher One -Call registration certificate number, address and e- mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (2) The name, address and e -mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (3) A certificate of insurance or self - insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the permittee by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the director; (2) Verifying that the permittee is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and 21 occupancy of the right -of -way by the permittee, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right -of -way by the permittee, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the director be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the director in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (6) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (7) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (8) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. (b) Payment of money due the city for (1) permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs, (2) prior obstructions or excavations; (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights -of -way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. Sec. 1.05. Issuance of permit; conditions. Subd. 1. Permit Issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the director shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The director may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use requirements of local state and federal laws including hot not limited to Minnecnta Statutes Section 1. S S 11 .11-•111 - - 1 .111 • X 1 1 - 1! G . a — O Om- as ► G -- -- — -11 .. a LA i u "! s. -- G1 22 Subd 3 • 1 1 • 1 1 I d A ... .. . . ... •. . . . ■.. 1'1 . - 11111' ... . . . 1 . .. .'■.. . -- 1.. . 11 as -. 1.1 - as 1 - ... • -s -11-1 - .r. . 14 ..- . - ... - .1 .15 1A .. . : - ... - .1 ... .- - ■I. .-. . 1' Sec. 1.06. Permit Fees. (Note: Sample fee schedules included in the appendix) The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the city management costs; (b) degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit Fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 3. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit Fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 4. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the director has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 1.21 are not refundable. Subd. 5. Application to franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right -of -way user in the franchise. Subd. 6. All permit fees shall be established consistent with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.100. Sec. 1.07. Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right -of -way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 1.15. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right -of -way or to restore the right -of -way itself. (a) City Restoration. If the city restores the right -of -way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with having to correct the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right -of -way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules 7819.3000. 23 (c) Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of right -of -way restoration, a right -of -way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right -of -way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100 Subd. 4. Duty to correct defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching, or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. Permittee upon notification from the director, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the director. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the director, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 1.15. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right -of -way in the manner and to the condition required by the director, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the director, the director at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right -of -way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. Sec. 1.08. Supplementary Applications. Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the area of the right -of -way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. A right -of -way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. Sec. 1.09. Denial of permit. The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use. Sec. 1.10. Installation Requirements. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right -of -way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes Secs. 237.162 and 237.163. 24 Sec. 1.11. Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rules 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work -site available to city personnel and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd 3. Authority of Director. (a) At the time of inspection the director may order the immediate cessation of any work, which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety, or well being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 1.21. Sec. 1.12. Work Done Without a permit. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each person with facilities in the right -of -way shall immediately notify the city of any event regarding its facilities that it considers being an emergency. The owner of the facilities may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the emergency the owner shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each facility owner affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the person whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non - Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right -of -way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by this code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right -of -way and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 1.13. Supplementary Notification. If the obstruction or excavation of the right -of -way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the director of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. 25 Sec. 1.14. Revocation of Permits. Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right -of -way permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the right -of -way permit; (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right -of -way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right -of -way permit; (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittees control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 1.18. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations might be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty -four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, which will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the city, or the permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Subd. 4. Reimbursement of City Costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. Sec. 1.15. Mapping Data. Subd. 1. Information Required. Each permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Subd. 2. ,Carviry l.atvrnlc All permits issued for the installation nr repair of service laterals other than u •• -•. 1- •-• • 11 i - • - .11 1 ••.• I. -• . 1 1 • 1 ■ . - u - . • • - . • • • e 1- g a s • • . • . • 1 11_1 ._! "AL_ - - - :AL • • O • • - • - • - - • I' 1 . - • - • - . - . 1 . 1 • • •• 1 . • - • • • • - • • . • • A • . • • . • - • • • - - • • - . -ma 11 • • - • . : - i • -so • . service laterals install after December '11, 7110 shall he a condition of any city approval necessary for 1) 26 111_71___O 111. 5 •G 1 1 1 1 . 5 5 II II II ' 11. _1 ! ! 5 - No- 1A .e- 5 . --- ---- - ---- -- .. - I 5 • t . \ .5 I i • a" • u . . . . I_ la" " 1 1 u - 1 . 1 _ 11 ' I _ 5 5 a --- -"III I _ • _. i i al . i. _ I S O s se i I ' I 1 5 111y 5 I _ S S G a_s a II . . 1 1 . 1 •u1. 51 51 l' Sec. 1.16. Location of Facilities. Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. [Note: Cities wishing to require the undergrounding of utilities should adopt the separate undergrounding ordinance included with appendix] Subd. 2. Corridors. The city may assign specific corridors within the right -of -way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right -of -way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. Subd. 3. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right -of -way and its current use, the director shall have the power to prohibit or director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right -of -way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right -of -way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right -of -way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. Sec. 1.17. Damage to Other Facilities. When the city does work in the right -of -way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move facilities to protect it, the director shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible and placed as required. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that facility owner and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each facility owner shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right -of -way which it or its facilities damages. Each facility owner shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another caused during the city's response to an emergency occasioned by that owner's facilities. Sec. 1.18. Right -of -Way Vacation. Reservation of right. If the city vacates a right -of -way that contains facilities, the facility owner's rights in the vacated right -of -way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. Sec. 1.19. Indemnification and Liability By applying for and accepting a permit under this chapter, a permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 27 Sec. 1.20. Abandoned Facilities. Removal of Abandoned Facilities. Any person who has abandoned facilities in any right -of -way shall remove them from that right -of -way if required in conjunction with other right -of -way repair, excavation, or construction, unless the director waives this requirement. Sec. 1.21. Appeal. A right -of -way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had permit revoked; (4) believes that the fees imposed are invalid; may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, �r cks,l, i n reviewed, upon written request, by the City council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 1. 1 I se 1 1 1 1 I.1 - Sec. 1.22. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers. A permittee's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 28 SAMPLE RIGHT -OF -WAY PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE The attached document is a fee schedule prepared by the City of Bloomington to support their right -of -way permit fee system. Under Minnesota Statute Sections 237.162 and .163, as well as applicable Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Rules, right -of -way permit fees must be based on the city's actual right -of -way management costs. Accordingly, the attached fee schedule looks at the various city activities associated with the registration and permit process. It then estimates the time associated with performing those various activities. Finally, it applies an hourly rate to each of the activities to arrive at the appropriate permit charge. Obviously the time and hourly rate will vary from city to city. However, the methodology used is a sound one and may help you arrive at a defensible fee system. 29 1. Regjstration Fee RIGHT -OF -WAY FEES & CHARGES Cost Estimates for Fees Time X $ Per = Cost Involved Muir ($) (Hour) Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 Review 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 Recording 0.25 X 40 = 10.00 Total Cost $ 40.00 Proposed Fee = $ 40.00 2. Excavation Permit Fees A) Hole Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 Verification 1) Plan Review 0.50 X 45 = 22.50 2) Inspection a) Location before work 0.50 X 30 = 15.00 b) Compliance during work 0.50 X 30 = 15.00 c) Completion after work 0.50 X 30 = 15.00 d) Reinspection 0.25 X 40 = 10.00 3) Testing Result Review a) Compaction b) Material 0.083 X 40 = 3.33 0.083 X 40 = 3.33 4) Mapping a) Review data 0.25 X 45 = 11.25 b) Transfer to Autocad 0.25 X 45 = 11.25 c) Insert to overlay to tie in 0.25 X 45 = 11 2._5 Total Cost $127.91 Proposed Fee $125_40 30 B) Emergency Hole Administration Inspection after completion 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 1.50 X 30 = 45 00 Total Cost $55.00 Proposed Fee X00 C) Trench Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 Verification 1) Plan Review 1.50 X 45 = $ 67.50 2) Inspection a) Location before work 0.50 X 30 = 15.00 b) Compliance during work 1.50 X 30 = 45.00 c) Completion after work 1.50 X 30 = 45.00 d) Reinspection 0.75 X 40 = 30.00 3) Testing Result Review a) Compaction b) Material 0.083 X 40 = 3.33 0.083 X 40 = 3.33 4) Mapping a) Review data 0.50 X 45 = 22.25 b) Transfer to Autocad 0.25 X 45 = 11.25 c) Insert to overlay to tie in 0.50 X 45 = 27 75 Total Cost 5244 The average trench is 330 lin. ft. past the width of a hole. Therefore, the number of 100 lin. ft. (or portion thereof) units is 4. The cost per 100 lin. ft. unit is 275.40 / 4 = $68.85/100' unit. Proposed Fees 31 f (Flue An1P FPP) 3. Obstruction Permit Fee A) Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 B) Recording 0.25 X 40 = 10.00 C) Review 0.75 X 45 = 33.75 Minimum Base Coat $ 53.75 Proposed Base Fee X44 Plus additional fee based on length Inspection 1) Compliance during work 1.50 X 30 = $ 45.00 2) Completion after 0.25 X 30 = 7 50 Additional fee on assumed 1000 lin. ft. permit = $ 52.50 Additional cost per lineal foot = $52.50 / 1000 = 0.0525 Proposed Fee = S50 M0 p>»Un nS rn ft 4. Permit Extension Fee A) Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 B) Recording 0.083 X 40 = 3.33 C) Review 1.0 X 40 = 40 00 Total Cost = $ 53.33 Proposed Fee = ss nn 5. Delay Penalty A) Administration 1.5 X 40 = $ 60.00 For up to 3 days of non - completion and non -prior notice before specified completion date. After 3 days, an additional charge of $10 /day will be levied. Total Penalty Charge = $ 60.00 (Up to 3 days late) Each day late over 3 days 32 = S 61,0 Plus i n nnmay Model Ordinance LMC /CEAM Right -of -Way Ordinance Form for Summary Publication City of , County, Minnesota A summary of an ordinance to enact a new Chapter of the Code of Ordinances to administer and regulate the public rights -of -way in the public interest, and to provide for the issuance and regulation of Right -of -Way Permits 1. The City Council has adopted a lengthy ordinance administering and regulating the public rights -of -way in the public interest and providing for issuance and regulation of right -of -way permits. The purpose of this summary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance and to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordinance being on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. 2. The City Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new chapter . The new chapter provides essentially as follows: Sec. 1.01. Findings, Purpose, and Intent Clarifies the reason and the need for the city to more effectively manage the public rights -of -way Sec. 1.02. Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way Clarifies the intent of the Council to manage the public rights -of -way pursuant to and in accordance with the authority given by the State Legislature in Minn. Stat. Secs. 237.162 and 163. Sec. 1.03 Definitions Certain words in the ordinance are defined here. This section also incorporates definitions adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in state rules. Secs. 1.06 Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy and Sec. 1.07 Registration Information Requires those using and occupying the public rights -of -way to register with the city and provide basic essential information. Sec. 1.08. Reporting Obligations Defines some minimum reporting obligations for utilities planning to do work in the public rights - of -way, including schedules for anticipated work. 34 Sec. 1.09. Permit Requirement, Sec. 1.10 Permit Applications, Sec. 1.11 Issuance of Permit; Conditions, and Sec. 1.12 Permit Fees Describes the requirements for obtaining a permit and paying appropriate permit fees before excavating or in anyway obstructing the public rights -of -way. Sec. 1.13. Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration Contains the requirements for restoring the public rights -of -way after excavation and adopts the restoration standards contained in Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. Sec. 1.17. Denial of Permit Specifies the grounds for denying a right -of -way permit. Sec. 1.18. Installation Requirements Specifies that the installation of utility facilities in the public rights -of -way shall comply with city requirements and applicable rules of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Sec. 1.22. Revocation of Permits Describes the grounds and procedures for revoking right -of -way permits. Sec. 1.23. Mapping Data Adopts rules of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission describing the mapping information that must be provided by those placing utility facilities in the public rights -of -way. Sec. 1.24. Location and Relocation of Facilities Describes the requirement regarding location of utilities and further adopts Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules regarding the circumstances when utilities can be forced to relocate their facilities. Sec. 1.28. Indemnification and Liability Specifies the circumstances in which those placing facilities in the public rights -of -way will be required to defend and indemnify the city for actions brought against the city. Sec. 1.30. Appeal Describes the process for challenging a city's decision involving application of this ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that publication of the title and summary of the rights -of way management ordinance as set forth in this summary will clearly inform the public of the intention and effect of the ordinance. The Council also directs that only the title and this summary be published. A copy of the entire text of the ordinance shall be posted in the library. Adopted by the City Council of on this day of 35 MODEL UNDERGROUNDING ORDINANCE [Prepared by Jim Strommen of Kennedy & Graven] The following are some suggested ordinance provisions to address undergrounding rights available to cities under Minnesota law and in light of the NSP v City of Oakdale decision, filed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on February 2, 1999 and not appealed by NSP. As a result of the Oakdale decision, cities may require undergrounding of electric distribution lines either through the exercise of police power or franchise right. The case does not give authority to require undergrounding of the higher voltage transmission lines, and by implication in the enabling statute, Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.36, would not be allowed under Minnesota law. Though the Oakdale case does not deal with telecommunication lines, the opinion and relevant statutory and case law would support the same right to require undergrounding under the city's police power. The Oakdale decision further holds that as an exercise of police power, the city need not reimburse the utility for the added cost of undergrounding. The utility must comply and bear the cost of compliance. The utility may seek recovery of the cost from the ratepayers through the tariffs or some other form approved by the Public Utilities Commission. The language suggested below covers undergrounding in three distinct contexts: new lines for new development; utility or city projects causing the need for facility repair or relocation; and a plan to underground all utility lines over a period of time. The right to require all facilities to be underground by a reasonable date certain appears supportable under Oakdale Cities have a restricted right to require undergrounding in the interest of safety and the general welfare. Note that the League of Minnesota Cities Model Right -of -Way Ordinance, Section 1.24, subdivision 1, deals with location of facilities. If your city has adopted the Model and intends to have a comprehensive undergrounding ordinance, we suggest that the following be added to section 1.24 of the ordinance. Subd. 5 Undergrounding. Unless otherwise agreed in a franchise between the applicable right -of -way user and the City, Facilities in the right -of -way must be located or relocated and maintained underground in accordance with Section of the City Code. 36 In accordance with the codification of a given city, the following is a sample, comprehensive approach to undergrounding of facilities. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right -of -way, (ii) non - travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and (iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the right -of -way must be made in accordance with this section. Definitions. The terms used in this section have the meanings given them. Commission. "Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Facility. "Facility" means tangible asset in the public right -of -way required to provide utility service. The term does not include Facilities to the extent the location and relocation of such Facilities are preempted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.45, governing utility facility placement in state trunk highways. Facility does not mean electric transmission lines, as distinguished from electric distribution lines. Public right -of -way. "Public right -of -way" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subdivision 3. Right -of -way user. "Right -of -way user" means (1) a telecommunications right -of -way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility, in the right -of -way, that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise or ordinance to use the public right -of -way. Utility service. "Utility service" means and includes: (1) service provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right -of -way user, including the transporting of voice or data information; (3) services provided by a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by a local government unit; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities placed in the public right -of -way must be located, relocated and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards. This section is intended to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right -of -way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162, 237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, USC Section 253. Undergrounding of New Facilities. A new facility or a permanent extension of facilities must be installed and maintained underground when supplied to: (a) a new installation of buildings, signs, streetlights or other structures; 37 (b) a new subdivision of land; or (c) a new development or industrial park containing new commercial or industrial buildings. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. A permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a facility of more than 300 feet must be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing facilities. Undergrounding is required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right -of -way user owning or operating the facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right -of -way for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right -of -way. Retirement of Overhead Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all facilities within the city, or within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to sections (new Facilities) and (replacement facilities) of this code. The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to the utilities affected. (Two weeks published: 30 days written.) At the hearing the council must consider item (1) — (4) in section of this code and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1) — (6) of section of this code. Public Hearings. A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right -of -way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under sections and of the city code. Public Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to: (1) The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all facilities in the right -of -way. (2) The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. (3) The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. (4) Alternative financing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. 38 Undergrounding Plan. If the council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all facilities in the public right of way, the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: (1) Timetable for the undergrounding. (2) Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless, undergrounding plan is citywide (3) Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. (4) Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non- discrimination requirements under the law. (5) A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. (6) Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. 39 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Right -of -Way Rules Located on Web at: [ http: / /www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us /arule /7819/] Utility Marking Rule: [ http: / /www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us /arule /7560/] WS — Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 6 Date: Council Work Session, May 5, 2008 To: City Council From: Mary Divine Re: Lions Club Donation Background The Lino Lakes Lions have indicated they would like to donate funds to the city for the purpose of purchasing a city sign with a reader board. The Lions have also done preliminary research into the costs. They will be getting the city a letter regarding the donation, which will be included in the Friday Update. 1 VI(4,t1 btA J w jv etkiy U Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 Memorandum To: Mayor Bergeson and City Council Members From: Rick DeGar er, Public Services Director Date: May 2, 2008 Re: Lino Lakes Lions Message Board City staff received the attached correspondence from the Lino Lakes Lions Club (LLLC) on Wednesday requesting that the City consider erecting a message board for the purpose of announcing community events. The LLLC is suggesting that a pedestal type design with message boards on both sides be considered. The LLLC has indicated they have approximately $30,000 available for this project. The attached letter identifies Lino Park (7850 Lake Drive) as a potential location. Initial staff assessment has concluded that placing a message board at Lino Park has some significant obstacles. City Code prohibits placement of message boards within the right -of- way. The current right -of -way in front of Lino Park extends to the western edge of the existing paved parking lot. Also, an additional 10 feet of right -of -way on each side of Lake Drive will need to be dedicated to Anoka County to provide the standard 120' width. In this particular instance, City Code stipulates that message boards must be at least ten feet from the right -of -way boundary. Therefore, placement of a message board at Lino Park would require placing it within the paved parking lot (at least 20' from the western edge). Two representatives from the Lino Lakes Lions Club will attend Monday's City Council Work Session to discuss this issue in more detail. Staff would be glad to evaluate any potential locations identified by the City Council (zoning restrictions, required footings, electrical costs, etc) and report back at next month's work session. C: \Documents and Settings \rick.degardner .METRO- INET\Desktop \Lions message board request.do April 30, 2008 To: City of Lino Lakes From: Lino Lakes Lions Re: Community Calendar Message Board The Lino Lakes Lions would like to entertain discussion of the placement of a message board for the purpose of announcing community events. We have accomplished preliminary discussion and review and are submitting the information available to date. One potential area or location of interest for placement would be Lino Park formerly known as Lion's Park on Lake Drive. We are currently considering a pedestal type design with message boards on both sides. Each side is capable of a different message. The speed of the street traffic was considered and the size of text or visual graphic was considered. We look forward to future discussion on this subject. Bill Walton 4/ President Lino Lakes Lions PO Box 309 Circle Pines, MN 55014 Ongoing contact: Neal Benjamin, 466 Main St., Lino Lakes, MN 55014 H -651- 780 -4901 C- 651 - 283 -9909 a y LED Capabilities Current Model: Premier 32088 Red Current Display: 117-e :t as Characters View LED Cabinet Animation L ;,y0 '9- ,��� `/es ,/ S- ea MMu -n/5/// oo % =,yG Cr Get a Quote! Reset Sign Cl /, ,,re 3- Page 1 of 1 ements Wall Mount ::hare k Display Type High Oebnit n Bite ■ High Debnition Premier Standard Definition l sp4ay Coley Red »n bar iDispla tight 15 3;a t3is'piFy 1i4�irath 495 128 14= ltd Cabinet Options Option A t2 6 Option D i3 Option C '3 6 Option Di::. no ID Cabinet Show Example of: E Mar Text Still Image C dt s9 r9 G Y,,Z/` S Animation Video Link X//).,e__/ i min - , ,z A; Cr 7 //e- z/c e/ (sig 2 S/ &a 7,- 74, ?,,13 //9 9,4 ,>/ 2 z a' G �r9 �✓ ,e M� �s ,9 ,C ,/ ter- ,� D` J' e G/ __ gg ,1 S 4,1 WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 7 Date: April 30, 2008 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Animal Control Regulations Background On February 25, 2008 the City Council approved 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03 -08, Repealing Sections 502, 503, 506 and 607 of the City Code and Adopting a new Chapter 503 Entitled Animal Control Regulations. As discussed at the Council Meeting, staff received public comments regarding the proposed changes and agreed to hold a public meeting to address citizen concerns. On April 8, 2008, the Police Department, along with City Staff, hosted a Public Meeting in the Council Chambers. The Police Department opened the meeting by reporting the following statistics from the years 2005 - 2007 regarding animal control within the city: 31 bite reports 288 dog at -large complaints 99 dogs impounded 12 dogs killed while roaming 42 dogs contained by neighbors 13 aggressive -dog complaints. The remainder of the meeting allowed for citizens to comment on the proposed changes to the city's existing regulations. The meeting was attended by ten residents and one member of The Citizen newspaper. Following the public meeting, City Staff compiled the comments received at the meeting, as found in Attachment 1. Members of the Police Department and City Staff then met to discuss considerations for making amendments to Ordinance No. 03 -08 prior to the 2 "d Reading. As a result, staff drafted revisions to the ordinance that addressed some of the citizen concerns and corrected some grammatical and formatting issues within the document. These revisions have been reviewed by the City Attorney. The following modifications were made to the ordinance based on public comment from citizens: 1) clarification of the definition of "At Large" to specify what constitutes restraint of animals in the city 2) clarification of Section 503.03 "Right of Entry" to require a search warrant 3) clarification of a number of sections to address notification to owner in instances of impounding and seizure of animals 4) provided an exception to allow for hunting dogs under Section 503.12 Prohibitions One area of concern expressed by residents is the confinement of animals while on the owner's property. It is the opinion of the Police Department and City Staff to continue to support the stipulation that voice command is not an effective form of restraint. The role of the Police Department is to ensure public safety and protect the members of our community. Staff considers it to be in the best interest of our citizens to take a proactive approach to improving animal control within the city. A revised Ordinance No. 03 -08 can be found as Attachment 3. All draft revisions are displayed as underlined or strike - through text in red and blue font. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting that Council review and comment on the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 03 -08. Following Council review, staff is anticipating placement of the 2 "d Reading of the ordinance on the May 26, 2008 meeting agenda. The draft ordinance will also be placed on the City's website, for public review, prior to the meeting. Attachments 1. Summary of Public Comments received at public meeting on April 8, 2008 2. Compilation of public comments received via email 3. Revised Ordinance 03 -08, Repealing Sections 502, 503, 506 and 607 of the City Code and Adopting a new Chapter 503 Entitled Animal Control Regulations 2 • • April 8, 2008 Animal Ordinance Regulations — Public Meeting Eileen Smith, 1920 77th St. E. owns 2 dogs on 1 acre of land has no money to install an invisible or standard fence requested text change to allow dogs on the property unrestrained while the owner is present would like a retractable leash allowance would like to allow 3 dogs instead of 2 Dave Bruder, 695 77th St. W • objects to removal of voice command request to address hunting land — hunting areas & gun club in City of Lino Lakes • feels he is being penalized as a responsible pet owner stated most other neighboring cities allow for voice command Mark & Leanne O'Brien, 7532 Patti Dr. owns a hunting dog that stays in yard by voice command they leash dog when off property feels this eliminates the possibility to exercise the dog in a yard — they have over 1 acre of property suggested the city target individual dog owners rather than taxing every dog owner suggested increasing fines after several offenses believes these regulations may deter people from moving here or cause others to move away Mary & Ron Secord, 6817 Lakeview Dr. doesn't want government to tell her what to do on her own property • believes the city is taking away the right to do things with their animals • feels the city is simply putting teeth into the regulations concerned with regulations — potential abuses: enforcement — officer gets to make discretion — malice may play a part of neighbor disputes — 503.15 officer gets to decide • concerned about 503.03 Right of Entry — she is not giving up her rights Bob Stafki, 8021 Elbe St. NE understands there is a problem, but thinks that the problem people will continue to be a problem believes that dogs have to be off a leash Al Taschuk, 467 Post Rd. some dogs jump fences responsible dog owners have the right to do what they want on their property 8/8/08 Animal Control Regulations — Public Meeting Page 1 of 2 John Johnson, 261 Elm St. • dogs can be trained to stay in their yard • had a dog trained very well — didn't leave property invisible fence doesn't always work some neighbors allow other dogs to enter their property agrees with allowing 3 dogs Julie Thell, (6482 12th Ave) • suggested implementing stronger regulations after numerous complaints 8/8/08 Animal Control Regulations — Public Meeting Page 2 of 2 • Dawn Bugge Grom: O'Brien, Leanne R. [LOBrien ©faegre.com] ent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:14 PM To: Michael Grochala Cc: Dawn Bugge; Dave Pecchia Subject: RE: Dog ordinance updates Thank you so much for your quick reply! I look forward to reviewing the newly revised proposed ordinance and attending the upcoming City Council Meeting. Again, thank you for your timely response. Leanne O'Brien 7532 Patti Drive From: Michael Grochala [mailto:michael.grochala @ci.lino - lakes.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:09 PM To: O'Brien, Leanne R. Cc: Dawn Bugge; Dave Pecchia Subject: Dog ordinance updates eanne: The ordinance will not be on the April 28th City Council meeting. Staff is currently reviewing comments received at the public meeting. We will be evaluating changes and preparing recommendations to the City Council over the next two weeks. We are anticipating having something to the City Council for their May 5 work session and possibly on the May 12th Council Meeting for consideration. We will be posting comments from the public meeting as well as a copy of the proposed ordinance (including any revisions) on the city website prior to council consideration. www.ci.lino - lakes.mn.us < file: / /www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us> From: O'Brien, Leanne R. [mailto:LOBrien @faegre.com <mailto:LOBrien @faegre.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:37 PM To: Kelly McCarthy Subject: Any updates on revised dog ordinance? Just curious if the revised dog ordinance was moving forward, and when it would potentially be posted on the city's website? Do you happen to know if they're planning on having it on the April 28th City Council Agenda? The only reason I ask is that I may be traveling for work. Let me know when you get a second. Thanks a lot ! Leanne O'Brien 7532 Patti Drive • Lino Lakes, MN 1 Michael Grochala Conununity Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway (651) 982 -2427 michael.grochala@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us 2 Dawn Bugge rom: Michael Grochala ent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:05 AM To: Dave Pecchia Cc: Dawn Bugge Subject: FW: Potential new dog ordinance issue Importance: High Here's another one. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway (651) 982 -2427 michael .grochala @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us - - - -- Original Message From: O'Brien, Leanne R. [mailto:LOBrien @faegre.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:08 PM To: Michael Grochala Subject: Potential new dog ordinance issue Importance: High I've just learned of a potentially new dog ordinance for the City of Lino Lakes. Was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some background information on who, and /or what, came up to put this issue on the Agenda for last night's City Council Meeting. I understand this discussion was tabled for the time being. Is there a new date that the City Council will again have this subject on the agenda? Please let me know. Thank you. Lanne R. O'Brien Resident 7 532 Patti Drive Lino Lakes, MN e—mail: lobrien @faegre.com • 1 Dawn Bugge 4111 rom: Gordon Heitke ent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:37 PM To: Dawn Bugge; Michael Grochala Subject: FW: Draft Animal Control Ordinance 03 -08 Importance: High Original Message From: Carol Danielson Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:17 AM To: Dave Pecchia; Gordon Heitke; Daniel Stoltz ; Jeff O'Donnell ; Jeff Reinert ; John Bergeson; Kathi Gallup (work) Subject: FW: Draft Animal Control Ordinance 03 -08 Importance: High - - - -- Original Message From: MARY LEE AMADO LEE [mailto:chevyracing38 @msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 4:50 PM To: Carol Danielson Subject: Draft Animal Control Ordinance 03 -08 Importance: High * *Please forward to city council members and other staff directly involved ** 11/1T o Whom It May Concern My name is Mary Lee and I am a concerned citizen of Lino Lakes and current dog owner. I was surprised to learn of the draft changes to the ordinance with so little time and information available to current residents. The phone number and individual linked to the document on the web site was unaware of any changes, I believe he was a Community Service Officer. Notification to all current registered dog owners would be costly; it would have been nice; but so is the time out of our lives to individually address concerns. Was there something published in the newspaper? I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night due to a prior commitment and short notice but would like to add my concerns. When is the final document scheduled for review? Owning three dogs and the requirement to live on an acre seems unrealistic (Hypothetical: what about a senior citizen with three small poodles ?) Does an electrical fence or underground fence or partial wood fence or chain link fence all have to meet the same requirements? L also know of individuals that volunteer with 'no kill' animal shelters and occasionally temporarily foster dogs, will there be exceptions to this ordinance ?? What about families involved in 4H? A county extension program highly valued in this community with a strong focus on raising animals. How are other family pets to be limited? (Hypothetical: what about owning ten cats? or fifteen rabbits? or five goats ?) The possibility of additional revenue with another imposed fee (private kennel fee - &mount unknown) seems unfair to dog owners not involved in the breeding of family pets. (those with 3 -4 dogs) • Ef a dog barks for three minutes while an officer is parked in the street the owner could t>e fined? I understand some people prefer owning a dog in lieu of a costly security system and they are much safer than owning handguns. Possibly linking the barking to the noise ordinance and hours of darkness, but limitations during the day also seems unrealistic. Do we want to encourage bark collars or shock collars? 1 Who are we paying to chase the cats that run around the neighborhood? If an un altered dog is in season this ordinance would require the owner of the animal to control actions of other dogs in the neighborhood? A dog can detect the scent of a dog season up to a mile away. Individuals in the business of profiting from irresponsible breeding of dogs (Puppy Mills) are not apt to be first in line to sign up for a license and allow inspections and addressing concerns by adding requirements to owners of family pets does not seem like the way to correct this problem. Similar concerns were also addressed this year at the state level. Does anyone have the outcome of that proposed bill? (HF 1046 or 2469 - SF2292/HF2469 ) I hope to hear more on this and communicate with someone before this is finalized. Thanks for reading this and acting in a positive manner. Mary Lee 651- 783 -8758 7782 Marilyn Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 2 Dawn Bugge Strom: Carol Danielson ent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:42 AM To: Dave Pecchia; Daniel Stoltz ; Jeff O'Donnell ; Jeff Reinert ; John Bergeson; Kathi Gallup (work) Cc: Gordon Heitke; Dawn Bugge; Julie Bartell Subject: FW: Draft Animal Control Regulations Original Message From: David Bruder [mailto:Whippet_98A @msn.com] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:01 PM To: Carol Danielson Cc: Whippet_98A @msn.com Subject: Draft Animal Control Regulations April 5, 2008 Dear Mayor Bergeson and City Council Members Gallup, O'Donnell, Reinert and Stoltz: I am writing this letter in regards to the proposed "Leash Law" that has been included in the 4111CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 03 -08 CHAPTER 503. Draft Animal Control Regulations Specifically, the taking out of the voice control, by a competent person as a form of restraint for our pets and for some of us, our hunting dogs. This in effect, will not allow a person to be able to play with their dog in their own yard, unless the dog is on a 6 feet leash or the yard is fenced. I don't know about you, but throwing a ball for my dog and then walking him on his leash to retrieve it, is not my idea of playing. I have always been a responsible pet owner; keeping up on my dog's vaccinations, obedience training, hunting retrieval training and continually working with my dog to reinforce that training. This retrieval training and playtime I have with my dog is not something I am willing to give up. I know some of the council members have pets and hopefully understand the pleasure that can be derived from just playing with your pet. The proposed 03 -08 also does not have an interpretation for electric underground fences and electronic collars which are both effective means of restraint. 1 also would like to address the fact that hunting is still allowed in some portions of Lino Lakes and by enforcing this proposed ordinance No. 03 -08, it will deny upland game and waterfowl hunters the enjoyment of working their pointing and retrieving dogs. I believe the Crossways Gun Club is still in existence and I'm sure its members would like to use their hunting dogs while hunting on Rondeau Lake, as well as the hunters on our other lakes and open hunting lands. The Draft Animal Control Regulation No. 03 -08 defines AT LARGE. An animal not under the custody and control of the owner or other person, either: 1 a) by leash, cord, chain, or otherwise restrained or confined while on the premises of the owner; or b) confined within a private vehicle or restrained by a leash not exceeding 6 feet in length while off the premises of the owner. The existing ordinance No. 03 -96 defines at large as not under restraint as defined in this section. Under Restraint. Controlled by a leash of not more than six (6) feet in length; under restraint by an electronic device, i.e. electric fence provided the animal is wearing a shock collar made for the specific electrical device; or within the limits of it's owner's premises in any residential district; under the voice or signal command of a competent Person whose command the animal will obey immediately in other zoning districts. Both the existing ordinance 03 -96 and the proposed 03 -08 address the enforcement issues by defining DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 503.15 DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 1. Attack by an animal. It shall be unlawful for any person's animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present. This section shall not apply to an attack by a dog under the control of an on- duty law enforcement officer or to an attack upon an uninvited intruder who has entered the owner's home with criminal intent. 2 Destruction of a dangerous animal. The animal control officer shall have the authority t o order the destruction of dangerous animals in accordance with the terms established by this ordinance. • 3. Definitions: a A Dangerous Animal is an animal which has: • 1-• Caused bodily injury or disfigurement to any person on public or private property; or i. Engaged in any attack on any person under circumstances which would indicate danger to personal safety; or iii. Exhibited unusually aggressive behavior, such as an attack on another animal; or iv. Bitten one (1) or more persons on two (2) or more occasions; or v. Been found to be potentially dangerous and /or the owner has personal knowledge of the same, the animal aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or ci nestic animals. b. A Potentially Dangerous Animal is an animal which has: i. Bitten a human or a domestic animal on public or private property; or ii. When unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any p ublic property in an apparent attitude of attack; or iii. Has engaged in unprovoked attacks causing injury or otherwise threatening the afety of humans or domestic animals. • 8 oth the existing 03 -96 and the proposed 03 -08 also go on to outline the enforcement g--2 olicies. Which I believe will address the non - responsible pet owners that do not train -rid monitor their dogs. 2 t In the Agenda Item 6B for the February 25, 2008 meeting stated the proposed 03 -08 were 1111 derived from language from Minnesota State Statutes, the League of MN Cities Model Animal Ordinance as well as various neighboring city ordinances to ensure that the revised regulations are thorough and up to date. I have researched some of our neighboring city ordinances and found the following cities allow voice control Forest Lake (99.01), Blaine (07 -2142 sec 14 -1), Circle Pines (sec 320.01 Subd. 12), Hugo (Chap 30.1), Ham Lake (Article 5.100 sec 5 -120), Roseville (Chapter 501.01), White Bear Lake (701.010 Subd. 3) In closing I would like to again say that the CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 03 -08 CHAPTER 503. Draft Animal Control Regulations is only going to penalize the responsible Pet owners, as I do not believe the problem dogs and owners that are in the city are going to comply with the new ordinance( No. 03 -08) any more than they comply with the ordinance we have now (No. 03 -96). Please feel free to contact me at the numbers below if you have any comments or concerns. Thank You for your time and I hope to see you at the meeting at the Lino Lakes City Hall at 18:30 on Tuesday April 8th 2008. Respectfully, "'David Bruder 695 77th Street West Ljno Lakes, MN 55014 Home 651- 786 -0902 C�11 651- 402 -0327 • 3 Dawn Bugge rom: Carol Danielson ent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:06 AM To: Dave Pecchia; Gordon Heitke; Dawn Bugge Subject: FW: Animal Control ordinance Attachments: DRAFT - Ord. 03 -08, Animal Control Regs -for website.pdf DRAFT - Ord. -08, Animal Con -- - -- Original Message From: Robert.L.Stafki @seagate.com [mailto:Robert.L.Stafki @seagate.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:02 AM To: Carol Danielson Subject: RE: Animal Control ordinance Carol, 1 have reviewed the draft proposal and have discovered that not only has the wording not changed regarding voice control but the provision for training hunting dogs has been removed. This is a very regrettable turn of events and is beyond my understanding as to why these unreasonable restrictions are even being considered. If there is a problem with animals i in Lino, then we need to go after the offenders, not the law abiding dog Wners. As far as vicious animals, as an officer and firefighter for Centennial Fire District, I generally know if, when and where dog bites or other attacks occur. I can remember only one instance that we have responded to irl my entire career of 15 years. Obviously we don't get called to every 1- rlstance but I would have at least an idea from conversations with Lino Police officers as to the magnitude of the problem, if one exists. Adding these restrictions will not affect the problem owners. It is likely that they won't even know or care about the ordinance. All it will do is Put restrictions on law abiding dog owners and make it difficult at best to train or exercise their dogs. L respectfully request that they reconsider these two restrictions and instead increase the penalty for owners who will ignore any restrictions. P tease forward my displeasure to the council members. I would also like to hear from them personally regarding what is driving this. Robert Stafki 6 51- 245 -1562 "Carol Danielson" <carol.danielson@ ci.lino- lakes.mn. To us> No Phone Info Available 03/27/2008 03:50 PM <Robert.L.Stafki @seagate.com> RE: Animal Control ordinance cc Subject Mr. Stafki, Earlier this month you inquired about our dog ordinance. We have recently drafted an animal control ordinance that is being considered. It has not yet gone to the council for a vote. The ordinance scheduled for city council consideration earlier this month was pulled from the agenda. Here is the current draft. Thank you. Carol Danielson Administrative Secretary Original Message From: Robert.L.Stafki @ seagate.com [mailto:Robert.L.Stafki @seagate.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:07 AM To: Carol Danielson Subject: Animal Control ordinance Good morning, I have reviewed the proposed ordinance regarding animal control and believe that it is generally a well thought out proposal with one very serious exception. I urge you to reconsider the language regarding the requirement that dogs be on a lead when on the property of the owner. If I am interpreting this correctly, there is no exception for dogs that are well trained or even adequately trained, regardless of how large the property, Location of the property, size or breed of the dog or attention of the owner. Dogs need exercise. Walking on a lead, to a dog, is not exercise. They need to run. This ordinance would prevent dog owners from even throwing a ball or frisbee for the dog to retrieve. I realize that there are problem owners and that they create work for our Police Officers, Animal Control Officers and others. But the passage of this ordinance would have little or no effect on these people. They ignore the ordinance now and passing a more restrictive one would not change this fact, only penalize those owners who already comply. I understand that this could be avoided by fencing the yard, either with invisible fence or a real one. But this is not a trivial expense and would be a financial burden that many people could not bear, given the current economy and the possibility of it getting worse before it gets better. I would like to propose that the wording be changed to require that the ellowner be present, in visual and verbal contact, and that the animal be nder control of the owner when out of doors and not otherwise confined by fencing or kennel. This would still allow law abiding owners to be able to be in the presence of their dogs, out of doors, without having to leash the animal. 1 also would like to propose that the consequences of not controlling the animal be more severe. 1 am appreciative of the effort and thought that has been put into the proposed ordinance, especially the protection (from abuse) of the animal that it offers. But please, reconsider the wording of this portion. Respectfully, Bob Stafki P.s. Please distribute this to all council members and Mayor Bergeson. (See attached file: DRAFT - Ord. 03 -08, Animal Control Regs -for Website .pdf ) • • • Page 1 of 1 Officer Paulson, Having worked with Paul Bengtson all last summer on the issue of 10 chickens, three of which are roosters, located at 472 Greenwood Lane, he told us that chickens are classified as pets. Unbelievable!! We were lead to believe that chickens were not allowed by Paul and he said he sent out letters to the party regarding this early on in June. As the chickens continued to roam dropping feces all over my yard and crowing all hours of the day I called Paul again late August. He finally got back to me and said the city attorney said that chickens are pets and they could keep them. They were told to keep the chickens in their yard by Paul. Well here we are, spring has arrived, working in the garage and guess what is standing next to my husband but one of the roosters. The rooster continued to stay in our yard for over four hours. I called the police as Paul had said to do. I called around 2:00 PM on Friday 3/14/08. I returned home at approx. 6:30 PM and the rooster was still in our yard. Did my call not mean anything to the city? Also the rooster's crow early morning hours and all hours if the day. Dogs are not allowed to do this why rooster's ?? Now it is Friday 3/28/08. It is a beautiful evening after work, my husband and I have decided to sit out in the warm sun and have a fire and relax after a long week. After about 10 min's the dog at said property came into our yard and proceeded to bark at us for proximately one half hour. No one attempted to retrieve the dog. Last year one of our neighbors had asked them in person to please control your dogs and chickens. Frustrating. The only way we can get away from the dog is to retrieve into our home. I decided that we will not go through another summer like this. We have tried on our own to handle the situation. I then called the police to document the dog and the dog was in our yard when he arrived. The officer then went over to talk with the owner of the dog. A few minutes later the gentlemen walked over to our home. We thought he was going to apologies but no he intimidated my husband. He stated, "my dog does not bother anyone ", then proceeded to call my husband a fat pig and that he had a girly voice and pushed our screen door on my husband's arm. The F word was this person's choice word. He also threatened, if we ever had a party in our yard he was going to call the police. We have lived in our house for almost 25 years and have never had a complaint about our behavior so I don't know where this is coming from.. This guy was out of control. We had a very uncomfortable evening after this happened. We did call the police officer back to tell him what had transpired so it should be on record for you to look at. Please advise. Thank You Diane Cable 462 Greenwood Lane Lino Lakes, MN 651 -780 -5108 http: / /us.f545.mail. yahoo.com/ym/Compose ?DMi d =713 2_2101419_ 1024_475_ 1522_0_2... 3/31/2008 Dawn Bugge rom: Carol Danielson ent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:29 AM To: Dawn Bugge; Michael Grochala; Gordon Heitke; Daniel Stoltz ; Jeff O'Donnell ; Jeff Reinert ; John Bergeson; Kathi Gallup (work) Subject: FW: Proposed new dog ordinance... - - - -- Original Message From: Jodi Budge [mailto:budge @fr.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:28 AM To: Carol Danielson Subject: Proposed new dog ordinance... Mayor and Council Members of Lino Lakes: As a home owner and tax payer (and previous dog owner) in Lino Lakes, I am frustruated with the new dog ordinance that is currently being discussed. Personally, I feel that home owners should be able to let their dog roam freely in their yard as long as they listen to voice commands. There are many dogs in my neighborhood on Palomino Lane that are terrific pets and listen to voice commands of their owners. I don't understand why a dog would have to be on a leash on that respective home owner's property. I can understand having dogs on leashes while walking on city streets, paths and in city parks, but in your OWN yard ? ?? It's up to the home owner to be responsible for their dog -- not the city. My husband and I were thinking about getting a dog for our 2 children, but if this 4111 ordinance gets passed -- why? The kids wouldn't even be able to play with heir new pet in their own yard like playing fetch, throwing a frisbee, etc. The city of Lino Lakes has more important issues that need attention rather than something as silly as this. Is this the kind of representation we are to expect with our hard- earned tax dollars? Maybe I should consider moving where city officials actually represent their residents' needs and not ridiculous issues of a senseless nature. Thank You. Jodi Budge 1 41 Palomino Lane Lino Lakes, MN 55014 6 51- 784 -3881 Jodi L. Budge Senior Docketing Specialist Fish & Richardson P.C. 3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza 60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct: 612.337.2512 Email: budge @fr.com ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If You are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication • (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the Purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 2 Dawn Bugge Wpm: Carol Danielson Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:03 AM To: Dawn Bugge; Michael Grochala; Gordon Heitke Subject: FW: Dog Issues Importance: High Original Message From: Dawn Hoschette [ mailto :DHoschet @ll.doc.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:59 PM To: Carol Danielson Subject: Dog Issues Importance: High I read in the Quad last week that a new dog ordinance was trying to get pushed through. It states that if this passes my dog will no longer be able to be in MY yard which I OWN and PAY a lot of taxes on without a leash'! - You've got to be kidding me! We moved to Lino Lakes back in 1991 because of the large lots, the feeling of "country" and to get away from the city hoopla that has all changed when you decided to build millions of homes thus taking away all the pretty land and wide open spaces which also created chaos in our school districts with having to build more schools and raise more taxes. And now you are telling me that my dog can not even roam in its own yard? - Be serious . . .maybe you should spend your time on more worthwhile issues like making sure our janitors are not pedophiles! III Dawn Hoschette Lino Lakes Resident Dawn Hoschette Finance Lino Lakes Corrections Facility 651.717.6182 • 1 • • • 1 Reading: Published: 2' Reading: Effective: To County Recorder: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 03 -08 AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTERS 502, 503, 506 and 607 RELATED TO ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances be amended by repealing and replacing Chapters 502, 503, 506 and 607 with an amended Chapter 503 to read as follows: CHAPTER 503. ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS Section 503.01 Definitions 503.02 Enforcement 503.03 Right of Entry 503.04 Impounding Animals 503.05 Impounding Strays 503.06 Impounding Facility 503.07 Redeeming Animals 503.08 Disposition of Animals 503.09 License and Vaccination Requirements 503.10 Kennel Licenses: Private and Commercial 503.11 Health and Maintenance Standards 503.12 Prohibitions 503.13 Confinement in Motor Vehicle 503.14 Rabies; Animal Bites 503.15 Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals 503.16 Dan • erous Animal Re • uirements 50346503.17 Forfeiture of Ownership Rights 50347503.18 Farm Animals 50348503.19 Wild Animals 50349503.20 Penalty 503.20503.21 Exemptions Page 1 of 20 503.01 DEFINITIONS. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words and phrases below are defined for the purpose of this chapter as follows. ANIMAL: Any mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish, bird (including all fowl and poultry) or other member commonly accepted as a part of the animal kingdom. Animals shall be classified as follows: a) Domestic Animal. Any animal commonly accepted as a domesticated household pet. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include dogs, cats, caged birds including pigeons, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, domesticated rabbits, fish, non - poisonous, non - venomous and non - constricting reptiles or amphibians, and other similar animals. b) Wild Animal. Any animal commonly considered to be naturally wild and not naturally trained or domesticated, or which is commonly considered to be inherently dangerous to the health, safety, and orb welfare of people. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include: 1. Any member of the large cat family (family felidae) including lions, tigers, cougars, bobcats, leopards and jaguars, but excluding commonly accepted domesticated house cats. 2. Any naturally wild member of the canine family (family canide) including wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and jackals, but excluding commonly accepted domesticated dogs. 3. Any crossbreeds such as the crossbreed between a wolf and a dog, unless the crossbreed is commonly accepted as a domesticated house pet. 4. Any member or relative of the rodent family including any skunk (whether or not descented), raccoon, or squirrel, of ferret, but excluding those members otherwise defined or commonly accepted as domesticated pets. 5. Any poisonous, venomous, constricting, or inherently dangerous member of the reptile or amphibian families including rattlesnakes, boa constrictors, pit vipers, crocodiles and alligators. 6. Any other animal which is not explicitly listed above but which can be reasonably defined by the terms of this subpart, including but not limited to bears, deer, monkeys and game fish. Page 2 of 20 • • • • c) Farm Animal. Any animal commonly associated with a farm or performing work in an agricultural setting. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include members of the equestrian family (horses, mules), bovine family (cows, bulls), sheep, poultry (chickens, turkeys), fowl (ducks, geese), swine (excluding Vietnamese pot - bellied pigs), goats, bees, and other animals associated with a farm, ranch, or stable. AT LARGE. An animal not under the custody and control of the owner or other person, either: a) confined or restrained on the owner's property by leash, cord, chain, enclosure or fencing otherwise restrained or-confined-while on the promises of the owner. Restraint by a remote electronic training device, on the owner's property, shall be allowed provided that the animal is under the immediate supervision of its owner or other responsible person. Voice command alone of an animal shall not constitute restraint.; or b) confined within a private vehicle or restrained by a leash not exceeding 6 feet in length while off the premises of the owner AUTHORIZED CITY PERSONNEL. The chief of police, law enforcement personnel, and others designated by law enforcement personnel to assist in the enforcement of this chapter. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL. Any structure or premises on which dogs are kept for the business of boarding for a fee, for the business of breeding for sale or other profit - making purpose, and not solely for private enjoyment. KENNEL, PRIVATE. Any structure or premises on which between 3 (three) and 4 (four) dogs, over six months of age, are kept for private enjoyment and not for monetary gain. MALTREATED ANIMAL. An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or shelter as specified in §503.11 or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. §343.21. OWNER. A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of an animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept are considered an owner or owners. PARCEL OF LAND. A contiguous tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, that has one legal description and parcel identification number recorded with the Anoka County Property Records Department. Also referred to as a "lot" or "lot of record." PERSON. An individual, firm, partnership or corporation. Page 3 of 20 PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter or land where an animal is kept or confined. PUBLIC NUISANCE ANIMAL. An animal that: a) is maintained in a manner that violates §503.11; b) by virtue of number or types of animals maintained, is offensive or dangerous to the public health, safety or welfare; or c) has been the subject of a violation of this chapter more than two times in a 24 -month period. VETERINARY HOSPITAL. A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. 503.02 ENFORCEMENT. The provisions of this chapter will be enforced by the chief of police, law enforcement personnel, law enforcement designees, and the assistance of other personnel when appropriate. 503.03 RIGHT OF ENTRY. Authorized city personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. Authorized city personnel may enter the private dwelling of an individual for the purposes of seizing animals or otherwise enforcing the provisions of this chapter with consent, or by first obtaining a search warrant. 503.04 IMPOUNDING ANIMALS. 1. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: a) they have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b) they have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health, and safety or welfare of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or Page 4 of 20 • • • c) they have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. 2. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. Written notice of the seizure shall be left in a conspicuous place if personal contact with the animal owner is not possible. 4.___The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 503.05 IMPOUNDING STRAYS. 1. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found at large on public property or claimed to be a stray by the occupant of the premises upon which the animal is found. 2. An impounded stray animal displaying a need for medical care may be taken to a veterinarian for emergency treatment. The owner of the animal is responsible for payment of expenses incurred as a result of the veterinarian's treatment. 3. Authorized city personnel shall give notice of an impounded animal to the owner if known. 503.06 IMPOUNDING FACILITY. 1. The council will designate a place as an animal impounding facility for keeping animals that are impounded by the city. 2. Each month the impounding facility will give to the city a written report showing the animals impounded, the duration of the impoundment, and the method of disposal for each animal. 503.07 REDEEMING IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. The owner of an impounded animal may redeem such animal upon payment of all impounding and /or boarding fees. Animal Owner is responsible for all assessed fees. No dog may be released unless properly inoculated for rabies and licensed by the city. Page 5 of 20 503.08 DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. If an impounded animal is not redeemed within five business days after the required notice, as specified in sections 503.04 and 503.05, authorized city personnel may give the animal away or direct the impounding facility to dispose of the animal in a humane manner. 503.09 LICENSE AND VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS: 1. License and Registration. All dogs within the City of Lino Lakes shall be licensed except the following: a) Dogs less than six (6) months of age; b) Dogs which are brought into the City for appearances in an animal show or trial; c) Dogs being used by law enforcement officers. 2. Limitations. No more than two dogs over six (6) months of age shall be kept on a property except as provided for in Section 503.10. 3. Vaccination Required. A person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog over six months old within the city must have the dog vaccinated by a licensed veterinarian with an anti - rabies vaccine that is currently effective. The owner shall be responsible for revaccination of the anti - rabies vaccine upon each expiration date and return to the city for re- licensing of their dog. 4. Tag Required. A person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog over six months old within the city must securely attach the City of Lino Lakes identification tag to the dog's collar so that it can be readily seen. The identification tag must be worn by the dog at all times when it is off the owner's or keeper's property. 5. Licensing/Vaccination Procedures. a) Application. Except as herein provided, within thirty (30) days of acquiring possession of a dog which has not been licensed by the City, or within thirty (30) days of moving to the City with a dog which has not previously been licensed by the City, the owner of the dog shall make application for a dog license. The application shall be on forms provided by the City. The applicant shall also provide proof of vaccination and spay or neuter status to the City prior to the issuance of a license or renewal of a license. b) License Fee. License application must be accompanied by a non - refundable fee as established by City Council ordinance. Page 6 of 20 • • • • c) Duration of License. All licenses are valid for the same length of time as the rabies vaccination and must be renewed within 30 days after the vaccination or a penalty will be applied in the amount set forth by City Council ordinance. d) Receipt and Tags. Upon completion of the application form, receipt of the license fee(s), and receipt of proof of vaccination and spay or neuter, if applicable, the City shall cause a license fee receipt to be issued to the applicant, along with a metallic tag. The applicant shall cause the tag to be affixed permanently by metal fastening device to the collar of the licensed dog in such a manner that the tag is easily observed. If a tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the City upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the initial license fee and upon payment of an additional fee for each duplicate tag in the amount set forth by City Council ordinance. e) Change of Address. An applicant who has obtained a dog license shall notify the City of applicant's address change within corporate limits of the City within thirty (30) days of any address change. f) Counterfeit Certificate. A vaccination certificate is valid only for the dog and owner to which it was issued. A person must not use a rabies vaccination certificate for a different dog than the one for which it was issued. g) Counterfeit Tags. No person shall counterfeit, attempt to counterfeit, or attach • any counterfeit tag to any dog in the City. • h) Transfer of Tags. No person shall transfer a dog tag from one dog to another. i) Change of Ownership. If there is a change in ownership of the dog during the duration of the license, the new owner may have a current license changed to their name upon payment of an ownership transfer fee, or may secure a new license. The ownership transfer fee shall be $1.00 503.10 KENNEL LICENSES: COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE. 1. General. Any person who owns, keeps, or allows the keeping of more than two dogs over six months of age on any parcel of land must first acquire a kennel license from the city. A person who owns or operates a commercial kennel or a private kennel must renew the license annually and comply with applicable requirements herein. a) An application for a private or commercial kennel license must be submitted to the police department accompanied by the fee established by City Council ordinance. Page 7 of 20 b) A kennel license may be issued after an inspection reveals that adequate safeguards are present to protect the surrounding neighborhood from nuisances and to ensure compliance with this chapter as well as Chapter 1007. A license may not be issued if the location does not comply with the applicable health and maintenance standards set forth below. The license may include conditions that authorized city personnel deem reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect people in neighboring property from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise and odors, and other unreasonable annoyances. The license or permit may be reasonably modified by authorized city personnel if necessary to respond to changed circumstances. The modification will be effective 10 days after the mailing of written notice by certified mail to the holder. c) Each dog over six months of age is required to have an individual dog license obtained by the city. d) A kennel license will be issued for a maximum of one year and will expire on May 31 of each year. A license may be revoked because of a violation of this chapter, or another relevant law, ordinance or regulation. 2. Private Kennel. A minimum of one acre of land is required to obtain a private kennel license in any zoning district. Every kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. A private kennel license shall be limited to a maximum of four dogs. 3. Commercial Kennel. Commercial kennels shall also be subject to the provisions of Chapter 1007. 503.11 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. 1. All Animals - Health Standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. a) An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b) The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self - closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the Page 8 of 20 • • • • equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. The structure shall meet the accessory building requirements as set forth in Chapter 1007. c) In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a and b, an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. d) If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. e) A female dog in season must be confined indoors or in a secure enclosure so that she will not be in contact, except for intentional breeding purposes, with another dog or create a nuisance by attracting other animals who engage in continued barking, yelping or howling. • f) An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water daily to meet adequate nutritional requirements. • g) No person shall beat, torment, tease, or otherwise abuse an animal, or permit an animal to fight. h) The owner of any animal within city limits will provide veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering of any sick or injured animal. 2. All Animals — Maintenance Standards. An owner off an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these standards, enforcement personnel must give an owner notice of a violation and a reasonable opportunity to comply. a) An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is kept. b) An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into wetlands. Page 9 of 20 c) The owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph (a) above. 3. Commercial Kennels & Veterinary Hospitals. In addition to the standards established under paragraphs 1 and 2, commercial kennels and veterinary hospitals must comply with the following standards. a) Housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. Indoor housing facilities must be adequately ventilated and have ample light, either natural or artificial. b) An enclosure must be of sufficient size to allow each animal to turn around fully and to stand, sit and lie in a comfortable normal position. The floors of the enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent injury to the animal's legs and feet. c) The temperature for indoor housing facilities must not be allowed to fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. d) Disposal facilities must be provided to minimize vermin, infestation, odors and disease hazards. e) Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. f) The premises, cages, enclosures and housing facilities must be clean and disinfected as often as is necessary to maintain clean and sanitary conditions at all times. g) Animals must be fed at least once a day with clean, wholesome food, sufficient to meet the normal nutritional requirements for the animal's age, size and condition. h) Clean potable water must be made available to all animals at least twice daily for periods of not less than one hour. i) Feeding and water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitary at all times. j) Animals housed in the same primary enclosure must be maintained in compatible groups. Non -adult animals must not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult animals other than their mothers. k) An animal exhibiting a vicious disposition must be housed separately. Page 10 of 20 • • • • • I) Females in season must not be confined in the same enclosure with males except for breeding purposes. Animals used for breeding must be of compatible size and only one male and one female may be mated at one time in a single enclosure. m) Animals affected with clinical evidence of infections, contagious or communicable disease must be separated from other animals in a manner to minimize the chance of further infection. An effective program for the control of insects, ecto parasites and other pests must be established and maintained. 503.12 PROHIBITIONS. 1. An owner must not cause or permit his /her animal to run at large within the city limits. This restriction does not apply to: a) dogs that have been specially trained and certified to perform tasks to assist people, such as handicapped assistance, police canine duties, or search and rescue. b) pigeons that have been released for limited periods necessary for exercise, training or competition provided it is not within twelve hours following a feeding. c� dogs that are engaged in a lawful hunt while under the control of a licensed hunter through voice command. ef-a licensed hunter, 2. An owner must not permit any animal to be on park property, city trails, public property or the property of another without having in the owner's immediate possession a device for the immediate removal of feces material deposited by the animal as well as a container for the transport of such material to an appropriate disposal receptacle. 3. A person must not abandon an animal within the city. 4. A person must not keep, own, harbor or otherwise possess a public nuisance animal, as defined in §503.01. 5. A person must not allow an animal to create a habitual disturbance. Habitual disturbance shall be defined as howling, yelping, barking, crowing, or other kinds of noise for repeated intervals of at least three minutes with less than one minute of interruption that is audible off of the owners' premises. 6. A person must not permit an animal under his /her care, custody or control to 110 damage another person's lawn, garden or other property, Page 11 of 20 7. A person must not injure, harass, or interfere with a police canine in the lawful performance of its duties, or attempt, permit or cause the same. 8. An owner of an animal must not fail to restrain the animal from inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily injury on a person at any place or on a domestic animal off the owner's property, except in the circumstances defined in Section 503.15, Subd. 3.b., Potentially Dangerous Animal. 9. A person, except police officers in the lawful performance of their duties using a police canine, must not cause or encourage an animal to engage in unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals. 10. A person must not own, possess, harbor, or train an animal for the purpose of fighting with other animals. 11. It is unlawful for an owner to sell or cause to be sold any animal without first providing the purchaser with written certification as to the origin of the animal. 503.13 CONFINEMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLE. 1. A person must not cause or allow an animal to be placed or confined in a motor vehicle without adequate ventilation or when the atmospheric temperature, humidity, and sun rays can be reasonably expected to cause suffering, disability or death. Evidence that the animal is suffering from heat stress is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. 2. This section does not prohibit the transportation of horses, cattle, sheep, poultry or other agricultural livestock in trailers or other vehicles designed and constructed for that purpose. 3. Authorized city personnel who find an animal in a motor vehicle in violation of this section may break and enter into the vehicle if necessary to remove the animal. Neither the personnel nor the city will be liable for vehicle damage that results. An animal removed must be taken immediately to the animal impounding facility to be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian. The personnel must leave within the vehicle a written notice giving their name and position and the address where the animal may be redeemed. The owner of the animal is responsible for any applicable fees and all medical and housing expenses incurred. 503.14 RABIES; ANIMAL BITES. 1. A dog or animal displaying symptoms of being rabid may be seized at any place or time and will be confined in the city impounding facility at the expense of the owner, until found to be free from rabies. Page 12 of 20 • • • • • 2. If a dog or other animal appears to be diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or has been exposed to rabies, and the dog or other animal cannot be impounded without serious risk of personal injury, the dog or other animal may be killed, if reasonably necessary for the safety of a person or persons. 3. When a dog or other animal has bitten a person and the skin has been broken or the services of a doctor are required, the owner or custodian of the biting animal and the person bitten or his /her parent or guardian must report the incident to the Lino Lakes Police Department within 24 hours of the bite. The dog or other animal must be confined for a period of not less than 10 days in a veterinary hospital or on the owner's premises, as determined by the authorized city personnel. These personnel may refuse to permit confinement on the owner's premises if the animal has previously been found repeatedly at large or if the animal does not have a currently effective rabies inoculation. If confinement on the owner's premises is permitted, the animal may not be allowed off the premises or in contact with people or other animals during the confinement period, except for medical purposes. If the owner fails to comply with these restrictions, authorized city personnel may enter onto the property, seize the animal, and remove it to a veterinary hospital. The owner is responsible for all costs of confinement incurred under this section. As a condition of releasing a confined animal, authorized city personnel may require that the animal's owner take the animal for an examination by a veterinarian and may require the owner to follow any recommendations from the veterinarian regarding the animal's training or behavior. The authorized personnel must notify the owner of these requirements in writing. Failure to comply with a requirement is a violation of this code, punishable as a misdemeanor and /or as a civil violation. 503.15 DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 1. Attack by an animal. It shall be unlawful for any person's animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present. This section shall not apply to an attack by a dog under the control of an on -duty law enforcement officer or to an attack upon an uninvited intruder who has entered the owner's home with criminal intent. 2. Destruction of a dangerous animal. The animal control officer shall have the authority to order the destruction of dangerous animals in accordance with the terms established by this ordinance. 3. Definitions: a. A Dangerous Animal is an animal which has: i. Caused bodily injury or disfigurement to any person on public or private IIIproperty; or Page 13 of 20 ii. Engaged in any attack on any person under circumstances which would indicate danger to personal safety; or iii. Exhibited unusually aggressive behavior, such as an attack on another animal; or iv. Bitten one (1) or more persons on two (2) or more occasions; or v. Been found to be potentially dangerous and /or the owner has personal knowledge of the same, the animal aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. b. A Potentially Dangerous Animal is an animal which has: i. Bitten a human or a domestic animal on public or private property; or ii. When unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public property in an apparent attitude of attack; or iii. Has engaged in unprovoked attacks causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. c. Proper Enclosure. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and to provide protection for the animal from the elements. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the animal to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only barriers which prevent the animal from exiting. The enclosure shall not allow the egress of the animal in any manner without human assistance. A pen or kennel shall meet the following minimum specifications: i. Have a minimum overall floor size of thirty -two (32) square feet. ii. Sidewalls shall have a minimum height of five (5) feet and be constructed of 11 -guage or heavier wire. Openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches, support posts shall be one - and - one - quarter -inch or larger steel pipe buried in the ground eighteen (18) inches or more. When a concrete floor is not provided, the sidewalls shall be buried a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in the ground. iii. A cover over the entire pen or kennel shall be provided. The cover shall be constructed of the same gauge wire or heavier as the sidewalls and shall have no openings in the wire greater than two (2) inches. Page 14 of 20 • • • • • • iv. An entrance /exit gate shall be provided and be constructed of the same material as the sidewalls and shall also have no openings in the wire greater than two (2) inches. The gate shall be equipped with a device capable of being locked and shall be locked at all times when the animal is in the pen or kennel. d. Unprovoked. Unprovoked shall mean the condition in which the animal is not purposely excited, stimulated, agitated or disturbed. 4. Designation as potentially dangerous animal. The animal control officer shall designate any animal as a potentially dangerous animal upon receiving such evidence that such potentially dangerous animal has, when unprovoked, then bitten, attacked, or threatened the safety of a person or a domestic animal as stated in Subd. 3.b. When an animal is declared potentially dangerous, the animal control officer shall cause one (1) owner of the potentially dangerous animal to be notified in writing that such animal is potentially dangerous. 5. Evidence justifying designation. The animal control officer shall have the authority to designate any animal as a dangerous animal upon receiving evidence of the following: a. That the animal has, when unprovoked, bitten, attacked, or threatened the safety of a person or domestic animal as stated in Subd. 3.a. b. That the animal has been declared potentially dangerous and such animal has then bitten, attached, or threatened the safety of a person or domestic animal as stated in Subd. 3.a. 6. Authority to order destruction. The animal control officer, upon finding that an animal is dangerous hereunder, is authorized to order, as part of the disposition of the case, that the animal be destroyed based on a written order containing one (1) or more of the following findings of fact: a. The animal is dangerous as demonstrated by a vicious attack, an unprovoked attack, an attack without warning or multiple attacks; or b. The owner of the animal has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to control the animal in order to prevent injury to persons or other animals. 7. Procedure. The animal control officer, after having determined that an animal is dangerous, may proceed in the following manner: a. The animal control officer shall cause one (1) owner of the animal to be notified in writing or in person that the animal is dangerous and may order the animal seized or make such orders as deemed proper. This owner shall be notified as to dates, times, places and parties bitten, and shall be given Page 15 of 20 fourteen (14) days to appeal this order by requesting a hearing before the city council for a review of this determination. i. If no appeal is filed, the orders issued will stand or the animal control officer may order the animal destroyed. ii. If an owner requests a hearing for determination as to the dangerous nature of the animal, the hearing shall be held before the city council, which shall set a date for hearing not more than three (3) weeks after demand for the hearing. The records of the animal control or city clerk's office shall be admissible for consideration by the animal control officer without further foundation. After considering all evidence pertaining to the temperament of the animal, the city council shall make an order as it deems proper. The city council may order that the animal control officer take the animal into custody for destruction, if such animal is not currently in custody. If the animal is ordered into custody for destruction, the owner shall immediately make the animal available to the animal control officer. iii. No person shall harbor an animal after it has been found to be dangerous and ordered into custody for destruction. 8. Stopping an attack. If any police officer or animal control officer is witness to an attack by an animal upon a person or another animal, the officer may take whatever means the officer deems appropriate to bring the attack to an end and prevent further injury to the victim. 9. Notification of New Address. The owner of an animal which has been identified as dangerous or potentially dangerous must notify the animal control officer in writing if the animal is to be relocated from its current address or given or sold to another person. The notification must be given in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the relocation or transfer of ownership. The notification must include the current owner's name and address, the relocation address, and the name of the new owner, if any. 503.16 DANGEROUS ANIMAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirements. If the city council does not order the destruction of an animal that has been declared dangerous, the city council may, as an alternative, order any or all of the following: a. That the owner provide and maintain a proper enclosure for the dangerous animal as specified in Section 503.15, Subd. 3.c. Page 16 of 20 • • • • • • b. Post the front and the rear of the premises with clearly visible warning signs, including a warning symbol to inform children, that there is a dangerous animal on the property, as specified in Minnesota Statute 347.51; c. Provide and show proof annually of public liability insurance in the minimum amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00); d. If the animal is a dog and is outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash (not to exceed six (6) feet in length) and under the physical restraint of a person sixteen (16) years of age or older. The muzzle must be of such design as to prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration; e. If the animal is a dog, it must have an easily identifiable, standardized tag identifying the dog as dangerous affixed to its collar at all times as specified in Minnesota Statute 347.51; f. All animals deemed dangerous by the animal control officer shall be registered with Anoka County within fourteen (14) days after the date the animal was so deemed and provide satisfactory proof thereof to the animal control officer. g. If the animal is a dog, the dog must be licensed and up to date on rabies vaccination. If the animal is a cat or ferret, it must be up to date with rabies vaccination. 2. Seizure. Animal control shall immediately seize any dangerous animal if the owner does not meet each of the above requirements within fourteen (14) days after the date notice is sent to the owner that the animal is dangerous. Seizure may be appealed to district court by serving a summons and petition upon the city and filing it with the district court. 3. Reclaiming Animals. A dangerous animal seized under Subd. 2 may be reclaimed by the owner of the animal upon payment of impounding and boarding fees, and presenting proof to animal control that each of the requirements under Subd. 2 1is fulfilled. An animal not reclaimed under this section within fourteen (14) days may be disposed of as provided under Section 503.15, Subd. 6, and the owner is liable to animal control for costs incurred in confining, impounding, and disposing of the animal. 4. Subsequent Offenses. If an owner of an animal has subsequently violated the provisions under Section 503.15 with the same animal, the animal must be seized by animal control. The owner may request a hearing as defined in Section 503.15, Subd. 67. If the owner is found to have violated the provisions for which the animal was seized, the animal control officer shall order the animal destroyed in a Page 17 of 20 proper and humane manner and the owner shall pay the costs of confining the animal. If the person is found not to have violated the provisions for which the animal was seized, the owner may reclaim the animal under the provisions of Subd. 3. If the animal is not yet reclaimed by the owner within fourteen (14) days after the date the owner is notified that the animal may be reclaimed, the animal may be disposed of as provided under Section 503.15, Subd. 6 and the owner is liable to the animal control for the costs incurred in confining, impounding, and disposing of the animal. 503.167 FORFEITURE OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. 1. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the city pursuant to the procedure in this section: a. a public nuisance animal; b. a wild animal; and c. a maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights of other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he /she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control the animal in order to prevent it from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. 2. Authorized city personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his /her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. 3. The owner shall be given fourteen (14) days from the date of the notice to appeal the forfeiture decision by requesting a hearing before city council for a review of this determination. i If no appeal is filed, the forfeiture decision will stand. ii. If an owner requests a hearing for determination as to the forfeiture of his ownership rights, the hearing shall be held before the city council, which shall set a date for hearing not more than three (3) weeks after demand for the hearing. The records of the animal control or city clerk's office shall be admissible for consideration by the animal control officer without further foundation. After considering all evidence, the city council shall make an order as it deems proper. 34. If the animal is deemed forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized city personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Page 18 of 20 • • • Authorized city personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property 1111 to take the animal into custody. • • 45. Authorized city personnel will determine on a case by case basis whether forfeited animals may be destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 503.178 FARM ANIMALS. 1. In addition to the provisions of this chapter, the keeping of farm animals or limited livestock raising may be permitted in rural zoning districts according to the regulations of §1007. 2. An exception shall be made to this subsection for those animals brought into the city as part of an operating zoo, veterinarian clinic, scientific research laboratory, or a licensed show or exhibition. 3. The keeping of farm animals legally existing at the adoption of this ordinance in residential zoning districts may continue to exist as to type and number of animals with the following provisions: a. the current use shall not be expanded; b. the current use shall cease if discontinued for more than a period of one year; c. a violation of any section of this chapter shall cease the current use. 50348503.19 WILD ANIMALS. It shall be illegal for any person to own, possess, harbor, or offer for sale, any man- domestic animal wild animal as defined in Section 503.01 within the City limits. Any owner of such an animal at the time of adoption of this Code shall have thirty days in which to remove the animal from the City after which time the City may impound the animal as provided for in this Section. An exception shall be made to this prohibition for animals specifically trained for and actually providing assistance to the handicapped or disabled, and for those animals brought into the City as part of an operating zoo, veterinarian clinic, scientific research laboratory, or a licensed show or exhibition. 503.1 -920 PENALTY. A violation of any section of Chapter 503 is a misdemeanor. Each day on which a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. Page 19 of 20 503.201 EXEMPTIONS. Animals used for law enforcement and fire rescue purposes in their official capacities are exempt from this chapter. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days following its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. John Bergeson, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2008. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 20 of 20 • • •